Madras High Court

P.Ganesan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 November, 2022

                                                                  W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022


                              BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            DATED:30.11.2022

                                                 CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                        W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022


                     P.Ganesan                            ...Petitioner

                                                     Vs

                     1. State of Tamil Nadu,
                        Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
                        Department of Revenue Administration,
                        Fort St. George,
                        Chennai.

                     2. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                        Rep.by the Home Secretary,
                        Secretariat, St. George Fort,
                        Chennai.

                     3. The Director General of Police,
                        O/o. of the Director General of Police,
                        Beach Road, Chennai.

                     4. The District Collector,
                        Tirunelveli District,
                        Tirunelveli.

                     5. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
                        Tenkasi,
                        Tenkasi District.

                     6. The Tahsildar,
                        Veerakeralampudur,
                        Tenkasi District.



                     1/24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                        W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

                     7. The Superintendent of Police,
                        Office of the Superintendent of Police,
                        Tenkasi District.

                     8. Mr.Anandhakumar,
                        The Inspector of Police,
                        Surandai Police Station,
                        Tenkasi District.

                     9. Mr.Esakki,
                        The Sub-Inspector of Police,
                        Surandai Police Station,
                        Tenkasi District.                         ..Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
                     Constitution of India,         praying this Court to issue a
                     Writ of Mandamus,      to direct the fourth respondent to
                     provide compensation to the petitioner a sum of Rs.
                     1,00,00,000/-      (Rupees    One    crore    only)    as    per     the
                     order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
                     vide Crl.Appeal No.804 of 2022 arising out of SLP
                     (Crl) No.3012 order dated 13.05.2022 within the time
                     period stipulated by this Court.


                                  For Petitioner         :Mr.K.Paramaraj


                                  For Respondents        :Mr.A.Kannan
                                  1,2,4,5 & 6      Additional Government Pleader


                                  For R3 & R7      : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh
                                                   Government Advocate (Crl.side)




                     2/24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022




                                                             ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for a writ of

mandamus to direct the fourth respondent to provide

compensation to the petitioner a sum of Rs.

1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) as per the

order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

vide Crl.Appeal No.804 of 2022 arising out of SLP

(Crl) No.3012 order dated 13.05.2022 within the time

period stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner was working as a Village

Administrative Officer in Anaikulam village,

Veerakeralampudur Taluk and one Krishnan is a

Village Assistant. Earlier, he was working in

Kulayaneri village on 21.03.2006 the President of

Kulayaneri village and other village people

informed to him by a written representation to

the effect that one Pasanthu and Subramanian

were taking their JCB vehicle through the place

prohibited by Supreme Court order in Writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

Petition ( Civil) No 318/2002 and also it was

prohibited by the Order of Land Special

Commissioner and Commissioner of Land

Administration vide D.0 Lr No.T1/847/2003

the Odai Poramboke in Survey Nos.221/3,

199/1 and in most of survey numbers they

a r e destroying the water sources. On 21.03.2006

at 12.00 P.M they went to the above Odai

Poramboke and in the meantime the above

said Pasanthu and few others had destroyed

water source the Odai Poramboke land in

Survey Nos.221/3, 199/ land by using heavy

equipments.

3. Hence, he has filed a case against the

above said private party namely Subramanian,

Pasanthu and 11 others before Learned Judicial

Magistrate, Alangulam and the same was

registered in C r. No . 69 /2 00 6. W he n th e sa id

Cr.No .6 9 of 2 00 6 is pending, he sought for

transfer of investigation before this Court in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4794 of 2006. This court passed

following order:-

"As the final report has now reached the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, the petition seeking transfer of investigating agency stands dismissed. The petitioner may work out his remedies before the Learned Judicial Magistrate concerned"

4. On 21.03.2006 the petitioner went to protect the water ways and acted in his official capacity. At the time of his duty, the said Subramanian and others threatened him with deadly weapons and abused him and therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Respondent No.9 and it was registered in Crime No. 69 of 2006, and the same was dismissed as mistake of fact, that c lo su r e report was also submitted by the 8th R es po n d e n t herein. Against the said closure Report, he filed protest petition in PR C. No . 8 of 2019 before the Learned Judicial M a g i s t r a t e , Alangulam, Tenkasi District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

5. On 21.03.2006 the said Subramanian

has preferred a false complaint against the

petitioner and four others a nd it wa s

registered in Crime No.68 of 2006 and the

Charge Sheet was filed in C . C . N o . 1 9 2 o f 2 0 0 8

that the Defacto complainant went in a

vehicle along the South North mud road in

Survey Nos. 221/3 and 199/1 which is situated

on the east of the Kulayaneri Village, the

above said accused formed themselves into an

unlawful assembly and he caused criminal

intimidation.

6. The allegation against the petitioner

and others in the Final report was that they

have committed the offences under sections

147, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) altered to 147, 148,

341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 149 of I.P.C. That the

above C.C.No.192 of 2008 was posted before the

Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi along with C.C.

No. 246 of 2006 and then transferred to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai.

7. He would further submit that the a

Kulayaneri Village people Villager filed a suit

in O.S.No. 204 of 2006 before the Principal

District Munsif Court, Tenkasi along with

Injunction Application in I.A.No.490 of 2006 in

Survey Nos. 221/3 and 199/1 and in some other

survey numbers of Kulayaneri Village, V.K.Pudur

Taluk, Tenkasi District. On 03.05.2006, the

petitioner has sent a representation to the

Respondent No.5 through his Association for

withdrawal of the case and also on 23.01.2007

the Respondent No.5 sent a letter to the

Respondent No.2 by in Na.Ka. A5/4928/06 and

thereafter on 05.03.2007 the Respondent No.4

issued a letter to the Joint Commissioner of

Revenue Administration by his proceedings in N a .

Ka. A1/30297/2006 and referred the case

against the Petitioners to be considered as a

case of the State.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

8. He would further submit that on

12.11.2008 the petitioner sent a

representation to the Respondent No.2 to issue

appropriate direction to the concerned

prosecutor to withdraw the case and also

consider as a case of the State. In the above

said circumstances, the petitioner has filed a

writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.

1525 of 2009 for direction, directing the

Respondents, the Director General of Police and

the Joint Commissioner of Revenue

Administration to consider his representation

dated 12.11.2008 and directing the

Respondents to withdraw the case which was

of 2008 on the file of L ea rn ed Ju di ci al

Magis tr at e, Se ng ot ta i, Ti ru ne lv el i D is tr ic t,

in exercise of the powers of the Government.

9 . B y o r d e r d a t e d 0 8 . 0 4 . 2 0 0 9 , this Court

also directed the Respondent No.2 therein (Govt

of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Home Secretary) to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

consid er a nd d is po se of hi s Re pr es en ta ti on

dated 1 2. 11 .2 00 8 on m er it s as p er th e L aw

within a p er io d of f ou r mo nt hs f ro m th e da te

of receipt of copy of that Order.

10. In the meantime, the petitioner

constrained to file a Quash petition to quash

the Final Report filed against him in C.C.No.246

of 2006, on the file of the Learned Judicial

Magistrate, Shengottai for offences under

sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 149

of I.P.C. In that case, On 12.06.2009 this Court

has granted stay in M.P.No.2 of 2010 in

Cr1.0.P.(MD)No. 2182 of 2009 and the same

was also disposed on 08.10.2012. On

31 .1 2 . 2 0 1 2 he got superannuation. Further,

the petitioner filed a Writ petition in

WP(MD)No.1286 of 2013 before this court for

seeking a relief of writ of mandamus by

directing the District Collector, Tirunelveli

and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

provide the retirement benefits, Gratuity,

Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Leave

Salary, Earned Leave Salary, Family Benefit

Fund, surrender of leave on private surrender.

This court also passed an order that the

terminal benefits of the petitioner to which he

will be entitled, by virtue of the order,

permitted him to retire, should be relased. The

respondents shall bear in mind the fact that if a

person is permitted to retire without prejudice,

he is entitled to the terminal benefits except to

the extent of the recovery of any monetary loss

alone.

11. On 10.03.2010, the Respondent No.2

passed the impugned order in Letter (D)

No. 252/CTS.IV/2010- 1 and rejected the

grievance of the petitioner to withdraw the case

which considered as a case of the State in

C.C.No. 192 of 2008 on the file of Learned

Judicial Magistrate, Sengottai, Tirunelveli

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

District in the exercise of the powers of the

Government. The retirement order was passed by

the 5th respondent vide proceeding

RO C. B 1 / 1 0 5 5 6 / 2 0 1 2 dt,31.12.2012 stating that

Thiru.P.Ganesan, Village Administrative

Officer, Kulayaneri Village, V.K.Pudur Taluk is

permitted to retire from the service on the

afternoon of 31.12.2012 without prejudice to

the pending framing charges which will follow

in due course and the court trial.

12. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ

petition in WP(MD)No.1286 of 2013 praying to

issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call

for the records pertaining to the impugned

order in R .O .C .B 1/ 10 55 6/ 20 12 , d at ed

31.12. 20 12 an d to q ua sh th e s am e as illegal

and consequently direct the concerned

respondents to provide all the retirement

be ne f i t s to the petitioner within the time

stipulated by this court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

13. On 24.01.2013, this court passed an

order in MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 that the terminal

benefits of the petitioner, to which he will be

entitled by virtue of the order, permitted

him to retire, should be pleased. The

respondents shall bear in mind the fact that if

a person is permitted to retire without

prejudice, he is entitled to the terminal

benefits, except to the extent of the recovery

of any monetary loss alone.

14. Inspite of the above order passed by

this court, the concerned respondent failed to

obey the same. Hence, the petitioner preferred

a contempt petition in Cont.P.(MD)No.467 of

2013 in MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 in W.P.(MD)No.1286 of

2013 to punish the respondents/contemnors for the

willful disobedience of the order passed by

this court in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013 in

W.P.)MD)No.1286 of 2013 dt.24.01.2013. When the

said contempt petition was taken up before this

court, this court p a s s e d a n o r d e r t h a t a s p e r

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

the submission of the counsel for

respondents, order of this court, dated

24.01.2013, made in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013 in

WP(MD)No.1286 of 2013, has already been complied

with by the third respondent/the Tahsildar,

V.K.Pudur, Ti ru ne lv el i Di st ri ct by hi s

proce ed in gs in Ro c. A3 / 1 16 95 /2 01 2 dated

19.03.2013. Hence the contempt petition was

closed.

15. He would further submit that in the

year 2013, he filed a Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 798 of

2013 to call for records in C.C.No. 192 of 2008

Judgment, dated 16.07.2013 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate Court, Sengottai and

expunge the remark of acquittal and hold it

a s h o n o r a r y acquittal for the petitioner/A3 in

C.C.No. 192 of 2008 and pass such further or

other Orders as this Court may deem fit and

proper in the circumstances of this case.

                                       16.        On      05.12.2013            when         case        in

                     Crl.R.C(MD)              No.        798       of     2008      came       up       for

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

heari n g , this Court has passed an Order that

the Petitioner has to be acquitted honorably.

The r e f o r e , the petitioner has to be

acquitted honorably as the case is not proved

as against him. For all the reasons stated

above, this Criminal Revision is allowed and

the finding of the Court below that the

petitioner is acquitted on the benefit of doubt

is modified and the petitioner shall stand

acquitted honorably.

17. He would further submit that the

order of the Respondent No.2 is illegal. The

petitioner was implicated in the case in C.C.No.

192 of 2008 and he only discharged his official

duty and did not commit any offence. The

Respondent No.2 failed to consider that on

05.03.2007 the Respondent No.4 issued letter

to the Joint Commissioner of Revenue

Administration vide Na.Ka.No.A1/30297/2006 and

referred the case a ga in st hi m t o b e c on si de re d

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

as a c as e o f t he St at e a nd it ca n b e withdrawn

by the State any time.

18. The Respondent No.8 has foisted a

false case against the petitioner. When

he was taken steps to proceed against

one Mr.Subramanian and four others, the

Respondent No.8 has registerd a false case

in C.C.No. 192 of 2008. Hence, it is just

necessary to take action against Respondent

No.8 and 9 in the interest of justice and

there is no any specific allegation against him.

19. That on 21.08.2017, the petitioner

has sent a detailed representation to the

Respondent to provide compensation for a

sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000(Rupees one crore

only). But no action has been taken till date.

The said all facts are clearly shows that the

Respondent No.8 & 9 had foisted false case

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

against him. Hence it just necessary to provide

compensation to him.

20. He has filed WP(MD)No.16528 of

2017 before this court seeking relief of writ of

Mandamus directing the respondents to provide

compensation to the petitioner for a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only) within

the time period stipulated by this court. When

the said writ petition came up before this

co ur t on 03.12.2020, this court passed an

order that considering the request of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner therein,

this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

However, if the petitioner surrender before the

concerned court, the bail petition may be

considered on the same day on merits and in

accordance with law.

21. Aggrieved over the above said

order, the petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.804

of 2022 arising out of SLP.(Crl).No 3012 of

2022 dates 13.05.2022 before the Hon'ble

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after

perusal of all the records passed the

following order:-

" the learned consel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the concerned Court and prayed that bail petition may consider on the same day and seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition.

Considering the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the concerned Court, the bail petition may be considered on the same day on merits in accordance with law. No costs."

22. In the meanwhile, this Court on

24.02.2022 passed a detailed order in

WP(MD).No.16528 of 2017 and observed as

follows:-

"the petitioner has to file a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

suit for damages and the damages cannot be waived in the Writ petition, that too, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Therefore, the Writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. "

23. Therefore, the petitioner filed the

present writ petition as per t h e o r d e r p a s s e d

by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Crl. Appeal

No.804 of 2022 arising out of SLP(Cr1).No.

3012 of 2022, dated 13.05.2022 which clearly

stated that Leave granted.

“This appeal challenges the judgement and order passed by the H i g h court of Judicature of Madras, Bench at M a d u r a i i n WP(MD)No.16528 of 2017 dt. 03.12.2020.

The writ petition filed by the appellant praying inter alia that he be provided compensation in the sum of Rs.

1,00,00,000/ - within such time as may be stipulated by the High court.

4.while dealing with such writ petition,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

the order passed by the High court was to the following effect.

Para 2 of Writ petition- " the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the concerned court and prayed that bail petition may be considered on the same day and seeks permission of this court to withdraw the petition.

Para 3 of Writ petition- "considering the request of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, if the petitioner surrender before the concerned court, the bail petition may be considered on the same day on merits in accordance with law. No costs.

                                  5.there     appears            to       be    some    mistake         in
                                  passing      the          order         as     what       has     been
                                  observed          by           the           High     court           in
                                  Paragraphs            2   and       3    has       nothing to do

with the fact situation presented before the High court.

6.We, therefore, have no other

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

alternative but to set aside the instant order and restore the petition on the file of the High court to be disposed of on merits.

7.we have not and shall not be taken to have reflected on the merits of the claim made before the High court and all issued including the question whether or not the petitioner can maintain and be granted relief as prayed for are left to be decided by the High court.

8. with these observations, the appeal is allowed.

24. Hence, the petitioner filed the

present writ petition seeking writ of

mandamus directing the fourth respondent to

provide compensation to him for a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- as per the order passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

25. The learned Additional Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents 1,2,4,5 &

6 would submit that as per the order of this

Court, dated 24.02.2022 made in W.P(MD)No.16528

of 2017, the petitioner has to approach the

competent civil Court by filing appropriate

petition.

26. It is seen from the records that already

this Court on 24.02.2022 in W.P(MD)No.16528 of 2017

has passed the following order:-

“Though the petitioner was acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 149 of IPC on the benefit of doubt, subsequently, it was modified as honourably for the service benefit, it does not mean that the respondents 7 and 8 prosecuted the petitioner on a false case. That apart, the petitioner has to file a suit for damages and the damages cannot be waived in the writ petition, that too, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.24849 of 2022

27.As clearly pointed by Mr.Justice

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN in paragraph-5 of the order made in

W.P(MD)No.16528 of 2017, this Court is of the view

that any question regarding the payment of

compensation has to be decided, only on the factual

circumstances and on the evidence, by the competent

civil Court.

28. In view of the above, this Court is not

inclined to accept the prayer sought for by the

petitioner, hence, this petition is dismissed. If at