Mr. Genganathan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

ORDER None appears for the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed through a counsel. Later, it appears that the petitioner had decided to conduct the case in person.

2.What is under challenge is a mere enquiry notice. The second respondent is none other than the mother of the petitioner. She had given a complaint that the petitioner had unilaterally got the mutation made in his favour. The mother wanted to have the same cancelled. In this regard, enquiry was proposed to be conducted. The question of interfering with the impugned notice does not arise at all. An enquiry notice by itself does not infringe the rights of any body. The petitioner can very well place all his contentions before the first respondent. If the final order goes against him, he can always question the same in the manner known to law. The first respondent shall issue fresh notice to all the interested parties.

3.The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

29.08.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli District.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias

29.08.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.08.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 Renganathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli District. 2.S.Saraswathi ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records culminated in the proceedings in Rc.No.A7 1927-2015 dated 16.06.2015 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, unenforceable, ultravires without authority and without jurisdiction. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Spl. Government Pleader for R1.