Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1062 (MAD)

N. Athimoolam v. Superintendent of Police, Theni

2015-02-23

V.M.VELUMANI

body2015
Judgment The petitioner has come up with this writ petition to direct the first respondent to take action in the petitioner's complaint dated 04.08.2012 consequently direct the first respondent to take steps to reinstate the petitioner's family in their community from Ex-communicating in Melmangalam Village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. 2.The petitioner has come out with the present writ petition alleging that one Murugesan said to be head of his community, Poi @ Ayyam Perumal, S/o.Ayyamperumal, Malaikallan alias Arjunan, S/o.E.Karuppiah, Peryumpuli @ Mayandi, S/o.Pommaimuthu, Mannar @ Kutti, S/o.Mookkan, Thangavel, S/o.S.Karuppiah, Pitchai, S/o.Athimoolam, S.Raju, S/o.Sivathevar, Pillaiyar @ Eswaran, S/o.R.Athimoolam and Radio @ Ayyamperumal, S/o.S.Athimoolam trespassed into his temple and made quarrel with him and ex-communicated the petitioner and his family members. They have instructed the Village people not to attend any of the functions in the petitioner's family and not to supply any Grocery or vegetables to the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner's family members are not allowed to take water in the public taps. Therefore, the petitioner along with his brothers made a complaint on 18.12.2012 before the second respondent about the atrocities. All the above persons were appeared before the second respondent on 19.12.2012 and gave an undertaking in writing to the effect that they will not ex-communicate his family and tendered apologies for their illegal act. Even after giving undertaking before the second respondent they continued to atrocities against the petitioner and his family members. 3. According to the petitioner, his elder brother Narayanan died on 17.07.2012. At that time all the above persons restricted his community people from entering his house to console them and also threatened the relatives from attending the funeral of his brother and not allowed to use their community vehicle to carry the dead body to the graveyard. While so, the above said persons tried to demolish the "Chavadi, given by the family members of the petitioner to his community people to take rest. The petitioner and his family members opposed the demolition. The above persons threatened him with dire consequences and abused in filthy language. Therefore, he made a complaint before the third respondent. The third respondent did not take any action against the above said persons. Again he made a complaint before the second respondent on 03.08.2012. The second respondent did not take any action against them. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. Therefore, he made a complaint before the third respondent. The third respondent did not take any action against the above said persons. Again he made a complaint before the second respondent on 03.08.2012. The second respondent did not take any action against them. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the various averments made in the petition. According to the third respondent, there is enmity between the petitioner and other members of his community. Therefore, complaints and counter complaints were given to the respondents. The matter was enquired and the Peace Committee Meeting was convened by the Tahsildar, Periyakulam and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam. Both the petitioner and others participated in the Peace Committee Meeting. Both the parties agreed to live in harmony and peacefully. The situation is closely monitoring by the Revenue Officials and the Police Officials. The petitioner and his family members are not ex-communicated. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard S.Balaji, learned counsel for Mr.V.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 6. From the pleadings, it is seen that due to the enmity between the petitioner and other community people are giving complaints and counter complaints to the respondents. The complaints were enquired into and the complaints are proved to be false. The Peace Committee Meeting was held by the Revenue Officials and Police Officials and both the parties agreed to live in harmony and peacefully. The authority after enquiry, has stated that the petitioner and his family members are not ex-communicated. There is no reason for not accepting the statement. Due to the fact that the enquiry was made and situation is closely monitoring by the police officials and Revenue Officials and statement of the officials that the petitioner and his family members not ex-communicated, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.