Madras High Court
M.Naina Mohamed vs The Tahsildar on 5 March, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.16181 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.16181 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.12880 of 2019
M.Naina Mohamed ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Tahsildar,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
2.M/s.Meenal Bankers,
represented by Meenal
Pudukottai District.
3.M/s.Sri Kumaran Bankers,
represented by Subbiah,
Pudukottai District.
4.G.Meenal
5.G.Subbiah
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
... Respondents
(R6 is suo motu impleaded vide Court order dated 03.03.2025 in
W.P(MD).No.16181 of 2019 by VLNJ)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.16181 of 2019
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in
his proceedings in Na.Ka.6190/2018/A6, dated 02.07.2019 and quash the
same as illegal in so far as, the interest portion alone and consequently, to
direct the respondents 2 to 5 to return the pledged gold to the petitioner
without insisting for payment of interest within a time frame fixed by this
Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.T.Pradeep
For R1 & R6 :Mr.S.Shaji Bino
Special Government Pleader
For R2 to R5 :Mr.A.Arul Jenifer
*****
ORDER
The petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the
proceedings of the Tahsildar, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District, in Na.Ka.
6190/2018/A6, dated 02.07.2019 and consequently, to direct the
respondents 2 to 5 to return the pledged jewels to the petitioner without
insisting for payment of interest within a time frame fixed by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
2. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. The
writ petitioner had pledged gold jewels to an extent of 1667 grams with
the second respondent, M/s.Meenal Bankers. He had also pledged 8
grams of gold jewels with the third respondent, M/s.Sri Kumaran
Bankers. He pleads no receipts were issued either by M/s.Meenal
Bankers or by M/s.Sri Kumaran Bankers. I have to point out here that
the second and third respondents are registered pawnbrokers within the
meaning of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943. They have secured
licence and they are carrying on their business.
3. The petitioner pleads he attempted to redeem the pledged items
from the respondents 2 and 3. I have to take note of the relationship
between the respondents 2 and 3. Meenal is the mother of Subbiah and
she is the licensee for M/s.Meenal Bankers and Subbiah is the licensee of
M/s.Sri Kumaran Bankers. The husband of Meenal and the father of
Subbiah is one Ganesan Chettiar.
4. The petitioner pleads that on 23.08.2011, he received a lawyer's
notice issued by Ganesan Chettiar stating that as the petitioner had not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
redeemed the jewels, which he had pledged in the years 2005 and 2008,
the jewels have been sold in public auction. Taken aback on being
intimated about the sale of the jewels, the petitioner approached the
revenue authorities and alleged that the pawnbrokers had defrauded him.
The Revenue Divisional Officer/sixth respondent initiated proceedings
and came to a conclusion that the allegation that the jewels have been
sold by the respondents 2 and 3, was a concocted story. Consequently, he
suspended the licence of M/s.Meenal bankers and M/s.Sri Kumaran
Bankers.
5. As the mere suspension of the licence did not put an end to his
agony, the petitioner approached the District Collector, Pudukottai
District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi and the Tahsildar,
Aranthangi Taluk, by way of a representation dated 20.06.2018, calling
upon them to retrieve his jewels and to return the same to him. On
21.08.2018, the Tahsildar issued an enquiry notice. As no tangible action
had been initiated by the Tahsildar, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District, the
petitioner filed a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to initiate
action on his representation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
6. This writ petition in W.P(MD).No.24882 of 2018 was disposed
of on 24.01.2019. A direction was issued to the Tahsildar to complete the
enquiry initiated by him on 21.08.2018 within a period of three(3) weeks.
Despite this direction, the Tahsildar did not proceed further. Hence, the
petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in Cont.P.(MD).No.701 of
2019. When the contempt was taken up for hearing, the first respondent
therein/ Tahsildar informed this Court that he had passed an order on
02.07.2019. Taking note of the fact that the order passed in
W.P(MD).No.24882 of 2018 had been complied with, the contempt
petition was closed. Option was given to the petitioner to challenge the
order by way of a separate proceeding. Hence, this writ petition.
7. Rule nisi was issued in the writ petition and Mr.A.Arul Jenifer
had entered appearance for the contesting private respondents. Mr.Shaji
Bino appears for respondents 1 and 6.
8. I notice that in the mofussil areas, an order to redeem the jewels
cannot be passed by the Tahsildar, but can be passed only by the Revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
Divisional Officer. Therefore, I suo motu impleaded the Revenue
Divisional Officer as the sixth respondent to this writ petition.
9. Before I enter upon judgment in the matter, there are few
considerations, which have to be noticed in this case.
(i) the relationship between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to
5 is not in dispute. The petitioner is the owner of the jewels and the
respondents are the money lenders ;
(ii) Ganesan Chetttiar, the husband of the fourth respondent and
the father of the fifth respondent, had pleaded that the jewels have been
sold and the Revenue Divisional Officer came to a conclusion that the
statement made is a false one.
10. Though Mr.A.Arul Jenifer sought to raise a plea that what was
deposited was only 1611.500 grams, I should point out that in the
detailed counter affidavit, that had been filed by the respondents, such a
plea had not been taken. In fact, during the course of enquiry before the
first respondent, the respondents 2 to 5 had taken a stand that what was
pledged was only 1445.500 grams of gold. A perusal of the lawyer's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
notice issued by Thiru.Ganesan Chettiar shows that he had not specified
the amount of gold that had been sold in the alleged public auction held
by the respondents 2 to 5. Apart from that, though the petitioner has
specifically pleaded about the quantum of gold that had been pawned by
him to the respondents 2 to 5, the long counter affidavit, that has been
filed to the same, does not controvert the quantum of gold pawned.
Therefore, necessarily, this Court has to come to a conclusion on the
principle of non-traverse that the petitioner had pledged 1667 grams of
gold to the second respondent and 8 grams of gold to the third
respondent.
11. Another interesting point raised by Mr.A.Arul Jenifer is that as
the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 5 falls
within the realm of contract, the petitioner would necessarily have to
approach the civil Court and the writ petition is not maintainable.
12. It is here that I have to refer the Rule 5(5) of the Tamil Nadu
Pawn Brokers Rules of 1943. The said Rule reads as hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
“5.(5)It shall be open to the pawners to seek the help of, in the
case of the city of [Chennai] [Substituted for the word 'Madras'
by section 3 of the City of Madras (Alteration of Name) Act, 1996
(Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1996).] the Tahsildar concerned or the
Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of
[Chennai] [Substituted for the word 'Madras' by section 3 of the
City of Madras (Alteration of Name) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act
28 of 1996).] or the Revenue Divisional Officer in other district,
for redemption of their pledges. The Tahsildar concerned or the
Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of
[Chennai] [Substituted for the word 'Madras' by section 3 of the
City of Madras (Alteration of Name) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act
28 of 1996).] or the Revenue Divisional Officer, in other districts,
when so approached by the pawners for the redemption of their
pledged articles, shall cause to verify the accounts of the
pawnbrokers as well as the receipts of the pawners, determine
the amount of principal and the interest due from such pawners
from the date of pledge till the period so required by the pawners
after deducting the interest, if any, collected by the pawnbrokers
and collect the amount so arrived from the pawners, after giving
a token receipts to the pawners for the amounts received. The
amounts so obtained from the pawner for redemption may be
entered in the subsidiary cash book maintained in the Taluk
Office. After redemption of the articles, they may be handed over
to the pawner, after collecting the token receipt. The receipt
received from the pawnbroker for the redemption of the articles
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
may be pasted in the subsidiary cash book maintained in the
Taluk Office.
13. A perusal of the Rule shows that in the city of Chennai, a
pawner can approach two authorities, namely, Tahsildar and Personal
Assistant (General) to the Collector of Chennai. In the areas outside the
city of Chennai, a pawner can take the assistance of the Revenue
Divisional Officer for redemption of his pledge. When the Rule permits
a party to approach the specified authority for the purpose of redeeming
their pledged items, the plea of Mr.A.Arul Jenifer that they have to
approach only the civil Court, cannot stand the moment's scrutiny and
hence, it is rejected.
14. As the impugned order had been passed by an authority, who
does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the same, the writ petition
necessarily has to succeed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
The impugned order stands quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
15. Parties have been litigating for nearly a decade. They have
been before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar, before this
Court by way of a writ petition and a contempt petition. Yet, the
litigation is yet to see its end. Therefore, by merely quashing the
proceedings, it is not going to put an end to the agony of the petitioner or
the respondents 2 to 5. Hence, I am passing the following order:
(i) The impugned order passed by the Tahsildar, Aranthangi,
Pudukkottai District, in Na.Ka.6190/2018/A6, dated 02.07.2019, is set
aside;
(ii) The sixth respondent/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi
shall take on file the petition of the writ petitioner on 20.06.2018. For
easy reference, a fresh copy of the said representation shall be sent by the
petitioner to the sixth respondent forthwith;
(iii) Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi shall
issue notice to all the parties. He shall verify the accounts of the
respondents 2 and 3 as well as the receipts, if any, that may be produced
by the writ petitioner;
(iv) He shall determine the amount of principal and interest due
from the pawner to the money lender, after giving due credit to any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
payment, if any, that has been made by the pawner to the money lender;
(v) He shall, after arriving at the amount, collect the same from the
writ petitioner and order redemption of the same.
(vi) The said exercise shall be completed on or before 28.04.2025.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16. Post the matter 'for reporting compliance' on 29.04.2025.
Index :Yes / No 05.03.2025
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
Rmk
NOTE : Issue order copy on 05.03.2025
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Rmk
05.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2025 08:34:46 pm )
