[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Karuppanan vs The District Collector on 17 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.A(MD)No.343 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.343 of 2026
K.Karuppanan ... Appellant/Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
3.Sivalingam ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 21.06.2024 made in W.P(MD)No.13304 of 2024 on the file
of this Court.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 02:34:15 pm )
W.A(MD)No.343 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.S.Mahesh Babu
For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam (R1 & R2)
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in
W.P(MD)No.13304 of 2024 dated 21.06.2024, whereby the Writ Petition
was dismissed, the petitioner, as appellant, has preferred the present Writ
Appeal.
2.The appellant/writ petitioner had filed the Writ Petition
seeking to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated
02.04.2024, whereby further action on his complaint against the third
respondent was dropped.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 02:34:15 pm )
3.The writ petitioner contends that he had submitted a complaint
to the second respondent seeking departmental action against the third
respondent, alleging that the third respondent, as Village Administrative
Officer, collected taxes but refused to issue individual tax receipts. In
addition, he had filed a criminal complaint and a complaint before the
Human Rights Commission alleging violation of rights by the third
respondent. However, departmental proceedings were closed without further
action.
4.The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on
record, dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved by the same, the writ
petitioner has preferred the present Writ Appeal.
5.The appellant/writ petitioner further contends that although he
had given a statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer, departmental
proceedings were closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 02:34:15 pm )
6.We are of the view that merely because a complaint has been
made, it does not entitle a party to insist that departmental proceedings must
necessarily culminate in an enquiry or disciplinary action. It is for the
competent authority to assess the evidence and decide whether the complaint
warrants further investigation or action. A mere dispute between the
appellant and the third respondent cannot, as a matter of right, compel the
authorities to conduct a departmental enquiry.
7.In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Writ
Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[N.S.K.,J.] [M.J.R.,J.]
17.03.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 02:34:15 pm )
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 02:34:15 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
and
M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ps
DATED : 17.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2026 02:34:15 pm )
