JUDGMENT 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing of the order of the Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam, the 4th respondent herein, made in proceedings Na.Ka.15462/07-B2 dated 20.11.2007 and further directing the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner for the alleged discrimination shown to the petitioner in denying him the use of Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam, Gandhipuram , Nambiyur on 21.11.2007 for the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter, who was then 6 years old. 2. Following are the brief averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition; When the petitioner approached the 8th respondent on 07.10.2007 for booking Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam, Gandhipuram, Nambiyur for the ear-boring function of his daughter, the 8th respondent enquired about the community of the petitioner and ascertained that the petitioner was a member of Arunthathiyar community, a scheduled caste. On coming to know that the petitioner belonged to Arunthathiyar community, the 8th respondent refused to book the mandapam for the above said function and on the other hand, he went to the extent of proclaiming that Arunthathiyar community people could not conduct any function in the mandapam belonging to caste Hindus. On such refusal on the part of the 8th respondent, the petitioner preferred a complaint on the file of Nambiyur Police Station. After the lodging of such complaint, the 8th respondent agreed to receive a sum of Rs.1,000/- as advance out of the rent of Rs.2,000/- since the mandapam had not been booked by any one else for any other function to be held on 21.11.2007. However, after the petitioner had made all arrangements for the function slotted to be held on 21.11.2007, the caste Hindus of Nambiyur, especially the respondents 8 to 19, caused a threat to the petitioner to withdraw the reservation of the mandapam for the above said function on the premise that the mandapam was meant for upper caste people alone. When the petitioner pleaded with the respondents 8 to 19 pointing out the fact that he had a right to equality guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Constitution of India, they chose to abuse him in the name of his caste. When the petitioner pleaded with the respondents 8 to 19 pointing out the fact that he had a right to equality guaranteed as a fundamental right by the Constitution of India, they chose to abuse him in the name of his caste. It made the petitioner approach the Sub-collector, Gobichettipalayam (4th respondent) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobichettipalayam (5th respondent) for immediate action for the acts of the respondents 8 to 19 showing discrimination on grounds of caste and abusing the petitioner in public in the name of caste. The petitioner also made representations to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore Range and the District Collector of Erode District (the first and second respondents). No action was taken against the respondents 8 to 19 and on the other hand, the 4th respondent, namely the Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam Division obtained a report from the Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam Taluk (6th respondent) and based on the report, he passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restraining the writ petitioner and 12 others and also respondents 8 to 19 from entering the village limits of Nambiyur from 20.11.2007 till 30.11.2007. Under the said circumstances alone, the petitioner has to approach the High Court for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus. 3. On behalf of the official respondents, namely respondents 1 to 7, the 5th respondent filed a counter containing, in brief, the following averments: Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam, Gandhipuram, Nambiyur was booked by the petitioner for the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter to be held on 21.11.2007. But the management of the Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam refused to give it for the function on the premise that it was likely to be used by the petitioner for convening a party meeting. The contention of the petitioner that on 07.10.2007 when the petitioner approached the 8th respondent for booking the Kalayana Mandapam for the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter, the 8th respondent refused to book it and hence, the petitioner preferred a police complaint pursuant to which the mandapam was booked in the name of the petitioner for the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter proposed to be held on 21.11.2007 is substantially correct. However, the 5th respondent received reliable information that the petitioner and other members of 'Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal' party were planning to conduct a political meeting at the venue on the above said date and time in the guise of ear-boring ceremony of the daughter of the petitioner and hence, the trouble between the petitioner and the management of the Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam started. Only in order to prevent any untoward incident, on the submission of a report by the 6th respondent (Tahsildar), the 4th respondent (The Sub-Collector & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam) passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the passing of the impugned order based on the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered in Crime No.180 of 2007 on the file of Nambiyur Police Station for an offence under Section 7(1) (b) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act (in short PCR Act) and the final report was taken on file as C.C.No.58 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Gobichettipalayam. The order of the 4th respondent was perfectly valid. The Kalayana mandapam, being one belonging to a particular community, the same cannot be construed to be a public building and the petitioner could approach the Civil Court claiming damages for the breach of contract, if any. 4. On behalf of the private respondents, the 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit containing, in brief, the following averments: The members of Senguthamudhaliar community of Nambiyur Village formed an association and built a Kalyana Mandapam out of their own funds in order to help people of their community for conducting auspicious functions as such as marriages at a concessional rate. The mandapam, known as Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam, is managed by elected body of persons among the members of Senguthamudhaliar community of Nambiyur village; that the 8th respondent was the elected secretary of the kalyana mandapam; that on 07.10.2007, some of the local leaders of a political party founded on caste basis, approached the 8th respondent for booking the kalyana mandapam to conduct a party meeting and that the 8th respondent represented that the kalyanamandapam was being given only for their community people, that too, for auspicious functions and not for conducting party meetings. Pursuant to the same, the then Sub-Inspector of Police of Nambiyur Police Station by name Subramanian took the 8th respondent to the police station stating that a complaint had been lodged against him by two persons under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. While he was being enquired in the police station, the writ petitioner and 3 other persons were present and the above said Sub-Inspector of Police demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- for not foisting a case against the 8th respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. On the refusal of the 8th respondent to make payment as per the illegal demand, the above said Sub-Inspector of Police directed the other party people to get the receipt book of the Kalyana Mandapam from the shop of the 8th respondent. On the above said direction of the Sub-Inspector of Police, the writ petitioner and three other persons went to the shop of the 8th respondent and the receipt book was forcibly acquired by them from the wife of the 8th respondent. When they brought it to the police station, Subramaniam, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station caused a threat to register a case under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and forced the 8th respondent to prepare a bill as if he received an advance of Rs.1,000/- from the writ petitioner for his daughter's ear-boring ceremony to be held on 21.11.2007. The said receipt dated 07.10.2007 was forcibly taken by the writ petitioner from the 8th respondent with the help of the police. Hence the 8th respondent informed the other office bearers of his community people and a complaint was lodged with the Sub-Collector and other higher officials about the illegal act of Subramaniam, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station. The same resulted in a tension between the two communities. Hence, at the instructions of the 4th respondent, a peace committee meeting was convened by the Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam, the 6th respondent, but no agreement could be reached. The Tahsildar submitted a report revealing an imminent community clash and based on the report, an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C was validly passed. Such an order would be in force for two months alone. The Tahsildar submitted a report revealing an imminent community clash and based on the report, an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C was validly passed. Such an order would be in force for two months alone. In case of any grievance against the impugned order, it was open to the petitioner to move the concerned Magistrate or his successor in office or any Magistrate subordinate to him to cancel or modify the order under Sub-Section 5 of Section 144 Cr.P.C. Without doing it, the writ petition has been filed based on misconception and with false allegations. The 8th respondent and others had also filed a private complaint against the writ petitioner and others before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Gobichettipalayam alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 342, 368, 384, 383, 193 r/w. 506(i) IPC. The said complaint has been referred to the police for investigation. Under the said circumstances, the 8th respondent prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.S.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the official respondents, namely respondents 1 to 7 and Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the private respondents advanced their arguments in line with the respective averments of the concerned party/parties. The arguments advanced on behalf of the parties were taken into consideration. This Court also considered the materials placed for its perusal by the parties concerned. 6. The writ petitioner M.P.Mariappan, is a resident of Piliampalayam Village, Nambiyur, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District and he belongs to Arunthathiyar community, declared by the Presidential notification as a scheduled caste. V.Ayyasamy, the 8th respondent, is the secretary/manager of Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam at Gandhi Nagar, Nambiyur. According to the writ petitioner, he wanted to take the said mandapam as the venue for conducting ear-boring ceremony of his younger daughter, which was proposed to be held on 21.11.2007 and he approached the 8th respondent on 07.10.2007 for booking the above said Kalyanamandapam for his function. According to the writ petitioner, he wanted to take the said mandapam as the venue for conducting ear-boring ceremony of his younger daughter, which was proposed to be held on 21.11.2007 and he approached the 8th respondent on 07.10.2007 for booking the above said Kalyanamandapam for his function. It is his further contention that the Kalyanamandapam had not been booked by any other person for any other function for the above said date i.e., 21.11.2007 and the said fact was also ascertained by the writ petitioner from the 8th respondent, but the 8th respondent, after ascertaining the fact that the writ petitioner belonged to Arunthathiyar community, refused booking of the said mandapam for the function of 21.11.2007, stating that the mandapam was meant for caste Hindus and the members of Arunthathiyar community would not be permitted to conduct their functions in the said mandapam. It is his further contention that even when he pleaded with 8th respondent to consult the President of the Kalayanamandapam in this regard, the 8th respondent besides refusing to allow the booking of the Kalyanamandapam for the function of the writ petitioner, caused humiliation to the writ petitioner in the name of his caste; that pursuant to the same, the writ petitioner lodged a complaint on the file of Nambiyur Police Station and that only after lodging of such a complaint, 8th respondent received a sum of Rs.1000/- as advance out of the rent of Rs.2000/- and booked the mandapam for the ear-boring ceremony of daughter of the writ petitioner scheduled to be held on 21.11.2007. The further contention of the writ petitioner is that after such booking, the private respondents, namely respondents 8 to 19 made a threat to the writ petitioner stating that he would have to face serious consequences if he did not cancel the reservation of the hall for his function on 21.11.2007, since according to them, the said hall was meant for upper caste people alone. 7. 7. Under the said circumstances, according to the writ petitioner, he had to approach the respondents 4 and 5 who in turn, asked him to contact the 6th respondent, namely the Tahsildar of Gobichettipalayam Taluk and the various representations sent to the official respondents did not evoke any response and on the other hand, the 4th respondent, namely the Sub-collector and Sub-divisional Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam Division, chose to pass the impugned order dated 20.11.2007 in his proceedings Na.Ka.15462/07/B2 directing the petitioner and 12 other persons and respondents 8 to 19 not to enter the village limits of Nambiyur from 20.11.2007 till 30.11.2007, as a result of which he was not allowed to conduct the function in the said Kalyanamandapam on 21.11.2007 even though he had printed the invitation and distributed the same to his friends and relatives. 8. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further argued that the respondents 8 to 19 chose to deny permission to the petitioner to use the Kalyanamandapam for his daughter's ear-boring ceremony, after he had booked the same, on the ground that the mandapam was intended for the use of caste Hindus and no member of the scheduled caste would be allowed to conduct his function in the said mandapam. It is also his contention that besides practicing untouchability by refusing permission to use the mandapam for the function of the writ petitioner on communal basis, the respondents 8 to 19 had also committed offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that when such a practice of untouchability and commission of atrocity on a member of scheduled caste was brought to the knowledge of the official respondents, instead of taking appropriate action against the offenders, the officials wanted to protect the offenders and as the culmination of such an indifferent attitude on the part of the official respondents, the Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, namely the 4th respondent herein chose to pass an order purportedly under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after getting a report from the 6th respondent, namely the Tahsildar of Gobichettipalayam Taluk, to the effect that the situation was tense and passing such an order was necessary to avoid any untoward incident. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the said act on the part of the fourth respondent is a malafide exercise of power done with the hidden object of helping the private respondents in their act of denying permission to use the Kalyanamandapam for the function of the writ petitioner, a member of a Schedule caste and that the fourth respondent failed to perform his duties under the provisions of the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the fact that though clear averments were made in the complaint made by the writ petitioner that untouchability was being practiced by the private respondents and he was also humiliated in front of others in the name of caste attracting the penal provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no case was registered by the police for any offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the complaint was also not investigated by an investigating Officer appointed in accordance with Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. 10. Copy of the complaint dated 07.10.2007 lodged by the writ petitioner on the file of Nambiyur Police Station, which has been included as the Document No.1 in the typed-set of papers filed by the writ petitioner, shows that on 07.10.2007 itself, after the 8th respondent refused booking of the mandapam for the function of the writ petitioner, the said complaint was given to the police. It is also obvious from the copy of the receipt issued in the said police station assigning the said complaint C.S.R.No.192 of 2007. It is also obvious from the copy of the statement given by the 8th respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station on 07.10.2007, during the enquiry on the said complaint, that he received a sum of Rs.1000/- as advance out of Rs.2000/- fixed as rent in receipt No.57 dated 07.10.2007. It is also obvious from the copy of the statement given by the 8th respondent to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station on 07.10.2007, during the enquiry on the said complaint, that he received a sum of Rs.1000/- as advance out of Rs.2000/- fixed as rent in receipt No.57 dated 07.10.2007. In the said statement, it had also been stated that when the writ petitioner approached him for booking the mandapam for his function to be held on 21.11.2007 informing that he belonged to scheduled caste, he had informed the writ petitioner that he would give an answer after consulting the Secretary. However, after the complaint was lodged and an enquiry was made by the Sub-Inspector of Police, he seems to have received advance and issued a receipt. In the said statement itself, he had stated that the writ petitioner should clean the mandapam after the function would be over. 11. The copy of the statement and the receipt issued by the 8th respondent as the Manager of the Mandapam have been produced at pages 3 and 4 in the typed-set of papers. Copy of the invitation printed and distributed by the writ petitioner for the said function is also available at Page 5 of the typed-set of papers. It is not in dispute that the said receipt was issued for the function of the writ petitioner scheduled to be held on 21.11.2007 and the writ petitioner started issuing invitations for the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter Harini. However, the private respondents, namely respondents 8 to 19 wanted to wriggle out of the commitment, passed a so called resolution to the effect that the Kalyanamandapam was booked in the name of the writ petitioner in the guise of using it for the ear-boring ceremony of the daughter of the writ petitioner, whereas the writ petitioner and other party cadres of a political party with a communal background, namely "Viduthalai Chiruthaigal" party wanted to use the venue for conducting a party meeting; that therefore, they have taken a decision not to allow the Kalyanamandapam to be used by the writ petitioner and that in this regard, complaints were given to the Sub-Collector as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. 12. 12. From a copy of the said resolution passed in the General Body produced in the typed-set of papers filed by the private respondents, it is seen that the resolution contains reference to an alleged complaint to the Sub-Collector on 19.10.2007 and compliant given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 31.10.2007. Of course, a copy of the complaint allegedly given by the 8th respondent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobichettipalayam is found at Pages 3 to 5 of the typed-set of papers of the private respondents. The same bears the date 31.10.2007. A copy of the complaint allegedly given to the Sub-Collector, Gobichettipalayam on 19.10.2007 is found in Pages 1 and 2 of the said typed-set. It is obvious from the copy of the said complaint allegedly addressed to the Sub-Collector that though the 8th respondent was described as the Secretary of Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam, in the Sender's address, at the end of the complaint, 8th respondent has signed it as President of the Governing Body of Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam. In the complaint allegedly given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 31.10.2007, the date of complaint given to the Sub-Collector of Gobichettipalayam has been referred to as 18.10.2007, which is contrary to the date found in the copy of the complaint which bears the date 19.10.2007. It is also obvious from the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent that the order does not refer to any such complaint lodged by the 8th respondent either on 18.10.2009 or 19.10.2007. On the other hand, in the reference portion, the report of the Tahsildar, Gobichettipalayam and the letter of the Deputy Superintendent of Police alone have been noted. It is also pertinent to note that the officer by name M.Bharatham, who passed the impugned order, was not the regular Sub-Collector and on the other hand he was only incharge of the post of Sub-Collector, Gobichettipalayam. It is also obvious from a copy of an order dated 20.11.2007 itself, which is found at Page 17 of the typed-set of papers of the private respondents, that the Incharge Sub-Collector, without an authority, had chosen to pass an order appointing Thiru R.Rangasamy as the Exercise Officer, Gobichettipalayam Division as Executive Maigstrate. It is also obvious from a copy of an order dated 20.11.2007 itself, which is found at Page 17 of the typed-set of papers of the private respondents, that the Incharge Sub-Collector, without an authority, had chosen to pass an order appointing Thiru R.Rangasamy as the Exercise Officer, Gobichettipalayam Division as Executive Maigstrate. The private respondents have also chose to include a copy of the private complaint allegedly submitted to the Judicial Magistrate II, Gobichettipalayam, which was forwarded by the said Magistrate to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation. No Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is found and no document showing registration of a case based on the said complaint is also furnished. 13. In this regard, the contention of the writ petitioner seems to be uniform and cogent. According to the writ petitioner, when he first approached the 8th respondent, who was the Manager of the Karpaga Vinayagar Kamatchi Amman Kalyana Mandapam, for reserving it for his daughter Harini's ear-boring ceremony scheduled to be held on 21.11.2007, the 8th respondent after ascertaining from the writ petitioner that he was a member of Arunthathiyar community, a scheduled caste, refused to book the Kalyanamandapam for the said function stating that the Mandapam was not meant for people belonging to Arunthathiyar community and on the other hand the same was meant for caste Hindus. It is his further version that since his appeal to the 8th respondent, at least to consult the President and Secretary of the Kalyanamandapam, did fell in deaf ears, he was constrained to lodge a complaint on the file of Nambiyur Police Station; that only thereafter, in order to escape from the criminal liability, the 8th respondent booked the Kalyanamandapam for the function of the writ petitioner and issued a receipt for the same and that subsequently, the respondents 8 to 19 belonging to a particular community wanted him to cancel the booking and threatened with dire consequences if he refused to do so. It is also his further contention that the private respondents, namely respondents 8 to 19, did so practicing untouchability by informing the writ petitioner that their community people would not allow the Kalyanamandapam to be let out for the functions of members of Arunthathiyar community, a scheduled caste and that when the writ petitioner confronted them by inviting their attention to the fact that the practice of untouchability has been abolished and by virtue of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, he was entitled to seek booking of the Kalayanamandapam for his family function on 21.11.2007, the respondents 8 to 19 humiliated the writ petitioner in the presence of others by calling him using his caste name and stating that Chakliyers could not be permitted to conduct any function in the mandapam meant for caste Hindus even though there was no booking had been made by any other person for that day. 14. As against the clear and cogent story propounded by the writ petitioner, the stand taken by the private respondents seems to be lacking in those aspects. First of all, as pointed out supra, no acknowledgment for having lodged a complaint with the Sub-Collector of Gobichettipalayam on 19.10.2007 has been produced. The copy of the complaint produced by the private respondents contains the date 19.10.2007, whereas in the copy of the complaint dated 31.10.2007, allegedly given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gobichettipalayam by the 8th respondent, the date of complaint given to the Sub-Collector is found noted as 18.10.2007, which is quite contrary to the date found in the copy produced as copy of the complaint given to the Sub-Collector. In the copy of the complaint allegedly given to the Sub-Collector, it has been stated that one Thangavel, Union Secretary, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Party and one V.T.Rangasamy of Vellalapalayam approached the 8th respondent at 09.30 am on 07.10.2007 and informed that they needed the Kalyanamandapam for conducting a party meeting, for which they were replied that it was not the practice of letting out the mandapam for party meetings and that, if they wanted they would consult the Executing Committee members and inform them; that thereafter the said persons went to Nambiyur Police Station and gave a complaint as if the booking of the kalayanamandapam for the ear-boring ceremony of the daughter of the writ petitioner to be held on 21.11.2007 was refused; that the Sub-Inspector of police took him to the police station in the guise of enquiry on the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner and made the receipt book which was kept in the shop of the 8th respondent to be brought to the police station after detaining the 8th respondent in the police station, by sending Thangavel, Rangasamy and Mariappan to the shop of the 8th respondent for bringing it to the police station; that after the receipt book was brought to the police station, the Sub-Inspector demanded a bribe of Rs.4000/- on the promise that in case of the 8th respondent making such payment, no action under the Protection of Civil Rights Act based on the complaint of the writ petitioner would be taken; that when the 8th respondent expressed his inability to arrange a sum of Rs.4,000/-, the Sub-Inspector, caused a threat and that pursuant to such a threat, the 8th respondent under duress and coercion issued a receipt. 15. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the complaint refers to the presence of three persons, namely Thangavel, V.T.Rangasamy and M.P.Mariappan, the writ petitioner in the Police Station besides the Sub-Inspector and it has been stated that the above said three persons alone went to the shop of the 8th respondent and brought the receipt book defying the resistance made by the wife of the 8th respondent. Nowhere in the said complaint presence of any person by name Pazhaselvam was referred to. Nowhere in the said complaint presence of any person by name Pazhaselvam was referred to. However, in the copy of the complaint dated 31.10.2007, allegedly given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, besides quoting a different date of the complaint given to the Sub-Collector, the 8th respondent has referred to the presence of the 4th person by name Pazhaselvam besides Thangavel, V.T.Rangasamy and M.P.Mariappan, the writ petitioner, as the persons who came along with the Sub-Inspector Subramanian and forcibly took him to the police station. In the alleged complaint given to the Sub-Collector, it has been stated that the Sub-Inspector came and took him forcibly to the police station, whereas in the alleged complaint given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, besides including the name of 4th person, it has been stated that all the four persons by names Thangavel, V.T.Rangasamy, M.P.Mariappan and Pazhaselvam came along with the Sub-Inspector Subramaniam and all of them forcibly took him to the police station. In the copy of the complaint allegedly given to the Sub-Collector, it has not been mentioned that he did not receive Rs.1000/- as advance as mentioned in the receipt, whereas in the complaint allegedly given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it has been stated that though the receipt was issued as if a sum of Rs.1000/- was received as advance, no amount was paid to him. It is also pertinent to note that in the complaint allegedly given to the Sub-collector it has been stated that Thangavel, V.T.Rangasamy and M.P.Mariappan (the writ petitioner) are the three persons who went to the tailor shop of the 8th respondent, after he was detained by the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Police station, to bring the receipt book. On the other hand, in the complaint dated 31.10.2007 allegedly given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it has been stated that after he was asked to sit in the police station, Thangavel, V.T.Rangasamy, Pazhaselvam and M.P.Mariappan, the writ petitioner, totally four in number, were sent to the shop of the 8th respondent and all of them went there and brought the receipt book defying the resistance made by the wife of the 8th respondent. 16. Furthermore, when no amount was paid as advance, he being the Manager of the Marriage Hall answerable to the members of the Managing Committee, could have refused to sign the receipt without payment of the advance. 16. Furthermore, when no amount was paid as advance, he being the Manager of the Marriage Hall answerable to the members of the Managing Committee, could have refused to sign the receipt without payment of the advance. It is also pertinent to note that though the receipt was issued on 07.10.2007, it took about 12 more days for the 8th respondent to send a complaint to the Sub-collector and 24 days to submit a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out the fact that the General body of the Community members of the respondents 8 to 19 was convened only on 06.11.2000, which would show deliberation and afterthought resulting in stage by stage improvement in the stand taken by the private respondents. 17. Of course the writ petitioner has raised a contention of discrimination on the ground of caste and practice of untouchability on the part of the private respondents, namely respondents 8 to 19 and the respondents 8 to 19 have taken a stand that in the guise of conducting ear-boring ceremony, the members of Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party wanted to conduct a party meeting and that was the reason why the private respondents refused booking for the alleged function of the writ petitioner. It is true that contentious issues may not be suitable for resolution in a writ petition. But, it must be noticed that in this writ petition above said contentious issue is not going to be finally resolved. Whether the act on the part of the official respondents in the given situation was bonafide or it was malafide in order to shield the private respondents and whether the official respondents have failed in discharge of their duties are to be considered in this writ petition. Article 15 of the Constitution abolishes discrimination by the state on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, the very same provision permits the state to make special provision by law for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes relating to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions whether aided or unadided other than minority educational institutions. By article 17 of the constitution of India untouchability in any form stands abolished and forbidden. It reads as follows: "17. By article 17 of the constitution of India untouchability in any form stands abolished and forbidden. It reads as follows: "17. Abolition of Untouchability: Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law" In this regard, two important legislations have been passed by the Parliament. They are: 1) Protection of Civil Rights Act and 2) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 18. It is obvious that a complaint was lodged by the writ petitioner alleging that when he approached the 8th respondent for booking the Kalyanamandapam for the ear-boring ceremony of his younger daughter Harini scheduled to be held on 21.11.2007, the 8th respondent, after ascertaining the fact that he belonged to Arunthathiyar community, refused to book the Kalyanamandapam stating that Arunthathiyar community people could not conduct a function in the mandapam belonging to caste Hindus. When such a complaint was given, sensing trouble that he would be facing prosecution not only under the provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act, but also under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, he allowed him to book the mandapam and issued a receipt after receiving 50% of the rent as advance. Thereafter, the private respondents, who did not want to allow the writ petitioner to use the mandapam for his function, wanted to prevent it by directing him to cancel the booking and when he refused to do so, they had taken a stand that the Kalyanamandapam booked for the ear-boring ceremony of Harini was in fact purported to be used for a political party meeting. 19. In this regard, it is the contention of the private respondents that two persons belonging to Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party wanted to book the mandapam for a meeting of their party, which was refused and they, in order to have the venue, had chosen to lodge a complaint in the name of the writ petitioner and obtained a receipt booking the mandapam for 21.11.2007 for the alleged purpose of conducting ear-boring ceremony of the daughter of the writ petitioner whereas the hidden agenda being one to conduct the party meeting of Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party. Quite contrary to the above said contention, averments are made in the alleged complaint given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 31.10.2007 to which a copy of the invitation printed and distributed by the writ petitioner came to be attached. It had been stated in the said complaint that the writ petitioner was distributing the invitation printed with the photograph of Vijayakanth, the leader of DMDK party. The private respondents have taken a stand on the one hand that the mandapam was sought to be booked for the party meeting of Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party and on the other hand have stated in their complaint that the writ petitioner was distributing invitation for the ear-boring ceremony of his daughter, in which the photograph of DMDK party leader Vijayakanth had been printed. They themselves were not sure as to whether any political party meeting was proposed to be held in the mandapam. 20. Simply because a person showing allegiance to a particular political party wants his party leader to come and grace the occasion, the function will not be converted into a party function. Almost it is common in Tamil Nadu that majority of the family functions are tinged with traces of political affiliation. Similarly, because the photograph of the leader of a particular political party has been printed in the invitation for the family function, it cannot be assumed that the venue was sought to be used for a party meeting. As pointed out supra, the private respondents themselves were not sure as to whether any political party meeting was sought to be held and if so the meeting of which political party - whether Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party or DMDK. If at all they were determined not to allow the mandapam to be used as a venue for the meeting of the political party, they could have very well imposed a condition in this regard while allowing the writ petitioner to go on with the proposed function. If at all they were determined not to allow the mandapam to be used as a venue for the meeting of the political party, they could have very well imposed a condition in this regard while allowing the writ petitioner to go on with the proposed function. In this case, if they still apprehend that the venue would be used for the political meeting and the same would trigger a commotion, they would have very well appraised the authorities and the authorities could have very well obtained an assurance from the convenor of the function that he would use it purely for his domestic function and he would not allow the use of the mandapam as a venue for political party meeting. 21. It is also quite obvious from the counter statement of the official respondents that in the peace committee meetings neither the writ petitioner nor any one supporting him declared that they wanted to use the mandapam on the occasion of the ear-boring ceremony of Harini, the younger daughter of the writ petitioner, as a venue for any party meeting of Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party or any other political party. It transpires that the writ petitioner was holding out that purely for a domestic function, namely ear-boring ceremony of his daughter, the mandapam was booked and that the same was sought to be prevented by the private respondent as they did not want a member of Arunthathiyar community, a scheduled caste, to use the mandapam for his family function. Of course, the private respondents were holding out that in the guise of ear-boring ceremony, the members of Vidudhalai Sirutthaigal party wanted to conduct a party meeting and that was the reason why they were not prepared to allow the use of the mandapam for the proposed function of ear-boring ceremony. When such were the stands taken by the parties to the peace committee, the officials could have very well taken an undertaking from the writ petitioner that the function arranged by him would be purely a domestic function and no meeting of the political party would be allowed to be conducted during the time allotted to him. Similarly, the private respondents also could have given undertaking that they would not disturb the domestic function if conducted in accordance with the undertaking of the writ petitioner. Similarly, the private respondents also could have given undertaking that they would not disturb the domestic function if conducted in accordance with the undertaking of the writ petitioner. The private respondents could have pleaded for the deployment of police personnel and other officials to see that the function was conducted as per the undertaking and none of the undertaking was violated. In stead of doing it, the 4th respondent, seems to have passed an order a day before the date fixed for the function arranged by the writ petitioner, directing him and 12 others being his friends and relatives and also respondents 8 to 19 not to enter the limits of Nambiyur village from 20.11.2007 to 30.11.2007. By passing such a prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C, the fourth respondent has helped the private respondents in their attempt to prevent the use of the Kalyanamandapam for the domestic function of the writ petitioner. The time at which the order came to be passed will have a bearing on the bonafide or otherwise of the exercise of the power under Section 144 Cr.P.C by the 4th respondent. It is also pertinent to note that the said order came to be passed not by the regular Sub-Collector, but by the Sub-Collector Incharge. It is also obvious from the fact that the Sub-collector, while passing the order under Section 144 Cr.P.C prohibiting the entry of the petitioner and 12 other persons and the respondents 8 to 19 into the limits of Nambiyur from 20.11.2007 till 30.11.2007, chose to pass an order appointing the Excise Officer of the Division as the Executive Magistrate to carry out the directions. That itself will show that there is no bonafide on the part of the Incharge Sub-collector in passing the impugned order. 22. The writ petitioner has also produced copies of the complaints sent to the Inspector General of Police, Coimbatore. The contents of the complaint and the representation made to the first respondent make it clear that the petitioner made accusations that there was practice of untouchability and the private respondents refused to allow him to use the mandapam booked by him for his daughter's ear-boring ceremony solely on the ground that he belonged to Arunthathiyar community, a scheduled caste. Allegations had also been made to the effect that the 8th respondent and also the private respondents humiliated him in the name of his caste. Allegations had also been made to the effect that the 8th respondent and also the private respondents humiliated him in the name of his caste. It has also been alleged that even Tahsildar, namely the 6th respondent, who held the peace committee meeting before whom the private respondents proclaimed that they would not allow an Arunthathiyar community to conduct his/her function in the mandapam as they had not allowed earlier, also informed the writ petitioner that when the members of the community to which the private respondents belonged were not prepared to give their Kalyanamandapam for the function of the writ petitioner, he should not insist upon holding the function in the said Kalyanamandapam. The said allegations are enough to initiate action not only under the provisions of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, but also for the atrocities punishable under section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 23. When such a complaint was made, the said complaint should have been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For any offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the case should be investigated upon by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed by the Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police. In this case, it is found from the counter affidavit of the respondents, official as well as private, that the complaint given by the writ petitioner was investigated upon by the Inspector of Police and not by an officer of the Police Department not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit of the official respondents that a case was registered based on the complaint of the writ petitioner for an offence under Section 7(1)(b) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and the final report submitted by the police, namely the Investigating officer was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate II, Gobichettipalayam as C.C.No.58 of 2008. It is quite obvious from the same that the complaint alleging commission of an offence under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was not properly dealt with in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the said Act and an incompetent person acted as the Investigating Officer. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Inspector of Police ought to have placed the CD file for orders of the Superintendent of Police for appointment of an Investigating Officer in accordance with Rule 7 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) rules. Unfortunately, the Inspector of Police failed to do it. Even after the matter was brought to the notice of the official respondents, no action under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was taken and the investigation was allowed to be conducted by an incompetent officer, namely, the Inspector of Police. The same will show failure to perform their duties. 24. Since the period during which the prohibitory order passed by the fourth respondent was to be in force has lapsed and the order is not in force as on today, except declaring that the order passed by the 4th respondent was not a bonafide one, no useful purpose will be served in quashing the said order. In respect of the prayer of certiorari seeking quashment of the order dated 20.11.2007 made by the fourth respondent, the writ petition has become infructuous since the said order is no longer in force. However, in a writ petition, the High Court can mould the relief by declaring that the said order was not a bonafide one and it was issued with a view to shield the offenders, namely the private respondents, who practiced untouchability. 25. However, in a writ petition, the High Court can mould the relief by declaring that the said order was not a bonafide one and it was issued with a view to shield the offenders, namely the private respondents, who practiced untouchability. 25. So far as the prayer for mandamus is concerned, since the writ petitioner had suffered humiliation as the function was to be called off on the eleventh hour because of the failure on the part of the official respondents to discharge their duties and their positive act of preventing the writ petitioner from entering the village by passing an order in purported exercise of the power under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which shall be in perpetuation of the humiliation caused to him in the name of caste by the respondents 8 to 19, this Court is of the considered view that the State shall be held responsible for such an act on the part of the officials to compensate the writ petitioner. This Court is of the view that directing payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation by the State Government shall be quite reasonable and the same will meet the ends of justice. Besides awarding such a compensation, there shall be a further direction to the third respondent, namely the Superintendent of Police to cause registration of a case for an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and get it investigated by an officer appointed by him in accordance with Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995. There shall also be a direction to the third respondent to proceed against the then Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station for an offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 26. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 20.11.2007 passed in Na.Ka.15462/07/ B2 is hereby declared to be one passed without bonafide. 26. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The impugned order of the fourth respondent dated 20.11.2007 passed in Na.Ka.15462/07/ B2 is hereby declared to be one passed without bonafide. The third respondent, Superintendent of Police, Erode is directed to i) Cause registration of a case based on the complaint of the writ petitioner for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ii) Cause registration of case for an offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the then Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station and cause both the cases to be investigated upon by a Police Officer to be appointed as per Rule 7 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995. The District Collector representing the Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the writ petitioner. The compensation should be paid within three months. If any case is registered based on the complaint of the 8th respondent against the writ petitioner and others, the same shall also be investigated upon by the very same police officer to be appointed as Investigating Officer in the case to be registered on the complaint of the writ petitioner. The investigation of the cases should be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.