MADRAS HIGH COURT
M Vengadesh – Appellant
Versus
The District Magistrate- cum – Respondent
WRIT PETITION 3020/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on
03.12.2018
Delivered on
12.12.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.No.3020 of 2018
M.Vengadesh
...Petitioner
.Vs.
1.The District Magistrate cum
The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode District, Erode.
3.M/s.Krishna Poultry Farm,
Rep.by its owner,
P.Kesavamoorthi,
Chinnaveerasangili Village,
Perundurai Taluk,
Erode District.
4.V.C.Palanisamy
5.Krishnamoorthy
.. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling
for the records of the 1st respondent/The District Collector,
Erode pertaining to the proceedings in Na.Ka.27530/2017 (C-4)
dated 19.01.2018 quash the same and consequently uphold the
order passed by the 2nd respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode in proceedings Na.Ka.4455/2017/Aa 2 dated 17.10.2017 and
by appreciating the above stated facts and circumstances.
For Petitioner
: Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Respondents
: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,APP for R 1 & R2
Mr.V.Karthik, Sr.counsel for R 3 & R 4
for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja,
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order
passed by the District Collector, Erode, dated 19.01.2018,
wherein, the District Collector has entertained an appeal
against the order passed by the RDO, Erode, under Section 133 of
Cr.P.C.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the District Collector, viz; the 1st respondent has no
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by
the 2nd respondent under Section 133 of Cr.P.C and the aggrieved
person should have challenged the order of the Revenue
Divisional Officer, passed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C only by
filing an independent writ petition before this Court.
Therefore, the learned counsel assailed the order of the 1st
respondent mainly on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
3.Mr.V.Karthik, learned Senior counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik
Raja, appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondent would submit that
the 3rd respondent had already filed a writ petition before this
Court in W.P.No.1669 of 2018, challenging the order of the 1st
respondent, dated 19.01.2018, and therefore, the order passed by
the District Collector, need not be gone into in this case. The
learned Senior Counsel also fairly submitted that the 1st
respondent may not have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal
against the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 133
of Cr.P.C.
4.In the considered view of this Court, the 1st respondent
does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an
order passed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. That apart, the 3rd
respondent has now independently challenged the order passed by
the 1st respondent in W.P.No.1669 of 2018, and therefore it is
not necessary to go into the merits of the case in this writ
petition, and this writ petition can be allowed on the question
of lack of jurisdiction of the 1st respondent.
In the result, the impugned order of the 1st respondent
dated 19.01.2018, is hereby quashed, and this writ petition is
allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
KP
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
To
1.The District Magistrate cum
The District Collector,
Erode District,
Erode.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Erode District,
Erode.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate Sr.No.85947
+1 cc to Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja, Advocate Sr.No.83697
Order made in
W.P.No.3020 of 2018
AK(CO)
CSL/07.01.2019
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.