The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus may not be maintainable if there are pending civil suits and alternative remedies available to the petitioner.

1. The Petitioner has projected the Writ of Mandamus praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent to take action on his Representation dated 17.12.2012 respectively in regard to an illegal harassment and interference made by the Second Respondent.

2. According to the Petitioner, he is a retired Village Administrative Officer who purchased the house property as per sale deed dated 04.11.2011 together with vacant land, in all, measuring an extent of 2409 Sq.ft from one Benjamin and 2 others who were NRIs for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.27,02,500/-(Twenty Seven Lakhs Two Thousand Five Hundred Only).

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that prior to the purchase of the above property, a sale agreement was entered into between one G.Prithiviraj, Third Respondent/power holder of vendor Benjamin on 21.05.2011 and an advance amount of Rs.10,10,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) was paid by him. It appears that the Third Respondent refused to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement and issue notice for cancellation of the agreement.

4. The Petitioner was perforced to file O.S.590 of 2001 on the file of the Learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore against the Third Respondent and the vendor of the said premises and sought for execution of sale deed. The said suit was decreed on 03.11.2011.

5. It comes to be known that the Petitioner prior to the passing of decree and when notice was ordered by the trial Court, the vendor came to know about the foul played by the power agent namely, the Third Respondent and he came in person and executed the registered sale deed on 04.11.2011. But to the shock of the Petitioner, even after the said sale, the Third Respondent who is a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police harassed him continuously and demanded more money. Since the Third Respondent is a retired police officer, he had influenced the Second Respondent and as such, the Petitioner is harassed in regard to the claim of more money and in this regard, he refused to heed to their illegal demand. The stand of the Petitioner is that the Second and Third Respondents threatened him with dire consequences etc.

6. Inasmuch as the Second and Third Respondents visited the house of the Petitioner during night hours and illegally threatened the Petitioner and his family members, he filed the suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.2692 of 2012 before the Learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore against the Third Respondent. It transpires that summons from the said Court were served on the Third Respondent.

7. The Petitioner had filed various complaints against the Second and Third Respondents on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission and others (including the First Respondent). That apart, he sent a registered complaint dated 25.12.2012 to the First Respondent.

8. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he had purchased the property in question on the decree passed by the Competent Civil Court and paid a valid sale consideration and sale deed was also registered by the concerned Sub Registrar. When that being the fact, Second Respondent is harassing him and his family members. Hence, he has projected the present Writ Petition before this Court.

9. It is to be pointed out that the Petitioner on earlier occasion filed O.S.No.590 of 2011 seeking the relief of Specific Performance against the concerned defendants and obtained decree in his favour on 03.11.2011. It is quite evident that the Petitioner got a sale deed in his favour dated 04.11.2011 duly registered on the file of concerned Sub Registrar. The Petitioner had also filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.2692 of 2012 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, Coimbatore against the Third Respondent concerned and the said suit is pending as on date. Only during the pendency of the second suit in O.S.No.2692 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court, the Petitioner has come out with a plea that Se