Madras High Court
R.Natarajan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 April, 2023
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
R.Natarajan ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Chief Secretary
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
Mayiladuthurai.
4. Sri La Masilamani Desiga Gnanasambanda Paramacharya
Swamigal,
Dharmapuram Adheenam, Dharmapuram
Mayiladuthurai 609 101. ...Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
Prayer :- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondent 1 to give reply to the Petitioner in accordance with
law, with reference to all the issues raised in his representation
dated 02.11.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Maragatha Sundari
For Respondents : Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan
Special Government Pleader
(for R1 to R3)
Mr.M.Karthikeyan (for R4)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of
writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the
representation made by the petitioner on 02.11.2022 and to
respond for the same.
2. The petitioner claims to be a practicing saivite.
According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent performed a
ceremony called as “Pattinappiravesam” and during that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
ceremony, he was carried in a Pallanquin by fellow human
beings. According to the petitioner, it is inhuman to make one
man carry the other in a civilized society and even if it is taken
to be a custom, the petitioner contends that it is a custom
contra naturam in law.
3. In view of the above, the petitioner made a
representation to take action for such an in-human act that was
done by carrying the 4th respondent in pallanquin. The petitioner
had sent an application under the RTI Act to the Joint
Commissioner seeking for information on the so called custom of
carrying the 4th respondent in a Pallanquin by human beings. On
receipt of this application, a reply was given by the Joint
Commissioner through letter dated 27.09.2022 to the effect that
there is no record available with respect to the information that
had been sought for by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
4. The petitioner thereafter seems to have made a
representation to the 1st respondent on 02.11.2022 by explaining
the entire facts and had sought for the action that is taken by
the HR&CE Department in order to stop the practice of carrying
the 4th respondent in a pallanquin by fellow human beings. Since
this representation did not evoke any response, the present writ
petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate
directions.
5. Heard Mr.E.Maragatha Sundari, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special
Government Pleader, for respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for 4th respondent.
6. The petitioner was pursuing application under
the RTI Act and hence, on the reply given by the Joint
Commissioner on 27.09.2022, the petitioner ought to have gone
on a Second appeal before the State Information Commission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
and worked out his remedy, instead the petitioner has given a
representation to the Chief Secretary. This procedure adopted by
the petitioner is unsustainable. Hence, the representation made
to the Chief Secretary, does not give a cause of action for the
petitioner to approach this Court and seek for a direction.
7. The scope and significance of issuing directions
by way of a writ of Mandamus where the party approaches the
Court seeking for the disposal of the representation, was
considered in detail by the Apex Court in [A.P.S.R.T.C and
others Vs. G.Srinivasa Reddy and others] reported in 2006 3
LW 170. The Apex Court made it clear that the practice of
issuing directions in a mechanical fashion should be avoided by
the writ court and the Court has to be convinced that there is a
legal right involved which warrants giving such a direction to the
state or an instrumentality of a state. No one can ask for
issuance of writ of Mandamus without a legal right. There must
be a judicially enforceable legal right as well as a legally
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
protected right before one who is suffering from a legal
grievance can seek for a mandamus. A person can be said to be
aggrieved only when a person has been denied a legal duty to do
something or to abstain him from doing something. The law on
this issue has been discussed in detail by the Apex Court in [Mani
Subrat Jain and others Vs. State of Haryana and others]
reported in 1977 1 SCC 486.
8. It is clear from the above judgments that a writ
Court will issue a writ of Mandamus only if the petitioner is able
to establish that the petitioner has a legally enforceable right
and there is a corresponding duty on the part of the authorities.
9. In the instant case, the grievance that has been
expressed by the petitioner is not based on any legal right. The
petitioner feels that the 4th respondent should not be carried in a
pallanquin by fellow human beings. Therefore, the petitioner is
looking at this issue from his perspective. If there are persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
who voluntarily want to carry some one in a pallenquin, no one
can stop those persons from doing it. The actual grievance will
arise only if somebody is compelled to do such an Act. In such an
event, it can be called as in human in a civilised society since
one man cannot be compelled to carry another man even in the
guise of calling it a custom since such a custom will be
considered custom contra naturam in law. Hence, in the absence
of any legal right on the part of the petitioner, there can never
be a corresponding legal duty on the part of the respondent. In
such circumstances, this Court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus.
10. In view of the above findings that the petitioner was
knocking the wrong door by approaching this Court when he was
simultaneously pursuing his application under the RTI Act and
also due to the fact that the petitioner does not have a legally
enforceable right, this Court does find any ground to entertain
this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
11. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
21.04.2023
rka
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation case : Yes
To
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Chief Secretary
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department,
Mayiladuthurai.
4. Sri La Masilamani Desiga Gnanasambanda Paramacharya
Swamigal,
Dharmapuram Adheenam, Dharmapuram
Mayiladuthurai 609 101.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
rka
W.P.No.12166 of 2023
21.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
