IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12-11-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI W.P. No. 42989 of 2025 Noorul Ameen ...Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The District Collector, District Collectorate, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

3.The Thahsildhar, Mayiladuthurai, Mayiladuthurai District.

Viluppuram.

4.The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, Chennai, No.1 Jafar Syrang Street, Vallal Setthakathi Nagar, Chennai-01.

5.ARZAD Muthavalli (incharge) Mohaideen Andavar Pallivaasal (masjid)

Arangagudi, Tarangampadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District- 609 302.

...Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.08.2025 and consequently pass suitable orders as per law with regard to the petitioner is excommunicated by his community for refusing to receive the annual subscription for Mohaideen Andavar Pallaivasal (Masjid), refused to provide a card for fasting porridge and not invited for all the Marriages, Functions of both village people, relatives in Arangakudi vVillage, Tarangambadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai and pas..

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.D.Arun For Respondents: Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Senior Counsel for R4 Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 to R3

ORDER

Heard Mr.D.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

2.Considering the limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, with the consent of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is excommunicated by his Community, refusing to provide a Card for fasting porridge and not invited for all the marriages, functions and also refusing to receive the annual subscription which is payable for the Mohaideen Andavar Pallaivasal (Masjid).

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to such a high handed act of the 5th respondent, the petitioner lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police and also to the District Collector.

4.The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the prayer sought in this Writ Petition seeks disposal of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.08.2025 which has been given only to the Inspector of Police, who is not the Competent Authority to decide the grievance of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the detailed representation dated 03.10.2025 addressing the District Collector, Mayiladuthurai prayed that the 1st respondent may be directed to dispose of the said representation, in view of the decision of this Court in K. Goapal v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2005 (4) CTC 241, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench held that if such unlawful, extra-constitutional activities like excommunication from village and collection of illegal fine are not put down with iron hand, there will gradually be collapse of law and order and democracy in State and all the State authorities were directed to take strong action, in accordance with law, to put down these unlawful activities which have mushroomed in several areas of the State.

5.The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his family members have been clearly excommunicated from the Village. It is only to redress the said grievance of the petitioner, he approached the police authorities as well as the District Collector.

6.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the Inspector of Police is not the Competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner and in any event, the representation dated 03.10.2025 has been issued only to the District Collector a