O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose of the written representation made by the petitioner on 04.04.2022 within a time limit stipulated by this Court.

Brief Facts:

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Door No.1/434-6, Ganesapuram, Somavarapatti, Pethappampatti Post, Udumalaipet Taluk, Tiruppur District. The 4th respondent has purchased a land, which is near the residence of the petitioner and constructed a house and shop thereon. The further case of the petitioner is that though the 4th respondent is running a provisional store in the shop, he has been indulging in converting the people from Hinduism to Christianity by giving false assurance that he would secure job opportunities and financial help to them and in order to preach Christianity, he makes use of the loudspeaker in high volume, thereby causing nuisance to public peace and tranquility in that locality.

2.1. It is averred by the petitioner that the 4th respondent, with the financial aid received from foreign countries, not only indulged in conversion, but also converting the local public as alcoholic. Though there were several representations submitted to R1 to 3, no action has been taken against the 4th respondent so far, which forced him to knock at the doors of this Court by way of this Public Interest Litigation, after forwarding the final representation dated 04.04.2022 to the respondents 1 to 3.

3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Pleader takes notice for 1st respondent and Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for 2nd respondent.

4. Learned Advocate General appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that there is a private dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the petitioner is trying to resolve the same by means of the present Writ Petition after giving representation dated 04.04.2022 to the District Collector.

5. Learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent would submit that on completion of the enquiry, it was found that there was a private dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and the petitioner, with a view to satisfy his personal vengeance due to private grudge, has filed this Writ Petition.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that Police has asked both the petitioner and the 4th respondent to appear for enquiry.

7. In reply, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that he is not aware of the said fact. However, he submits that it is not the Forum to resolve the private dispute between the parties, namely, the petitioner and the 4th respondent.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing both the parties, we are of the view that under the pretext of disposing of the representation, the petitioner is attempting to iron out his private dispute with the 4th respondent indirectly which is not permissible. However, the Authorities concerned can verify whether any prior permission has been obtained by the 4th respondent to install loud speaker and conduct mass in the house. It can also be found out whether any conversion or supply of liquor, as alleged by the petitioner, takes place in the house of the 4th respondent. Since it is represented by the petitioner that Police has called for an enquiry, which fact is unknown to the learned Advocate General, it is open to the petitioner to place photographs and videograph before the Authority concerned to establish the alleged accusations made by the petitioner against the 4th respondent. The Authorities concerned, after conducting enquiry, hearing both parties and perusal of material documents, shall take a decision in accordance with law.

9. In the result, this Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

[S.V.N., J.] [J.S.N.