IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI Rajesh Kumar Petitioner Vs

1. The Director of Collegiate Education Education Department, No 577, Anna Salai, Saidapettai, Chennai

2.The Principal Kandarswami Kandars College (Aided), paramathi Velur, Namakkal District

3.Dr. V.S. Shobna, W/o Arumugam, No 51, Madurai Veeran Respondents Kovil Street, Pothanur Post, P. Velur Taluk, namakkal District Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry based upon the representation given by the petitioner dated 13.10.2025, seeking to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the

3^rd respondent within stipulated time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S. Manoj Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.R. Gokulkrishna Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1

ORDER

Mr.M.R. Gokul Krishna, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the 1^st respondent. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider his representation dated 13.10.2025 and to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the 3^rd respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, he was a tenant under the 3^rd respondent from the year 2018 and was carrying on textile business in the name and style of Karur Silks. Due to disputes between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and her husband, the petitioner was allegedly forced to vacate the premises. It is further stated that the 3^rd respondent and her husband attacked him and removed goods worth about Rs.1,65,00,000/-, in respect of which a private complaint in C.C.No.107 of 2020 is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. During the course of the said proceedings, the petitioner claims to have learnt that the 3^rd respondent is employed as an Assistant Professor in the 2^nd respondent College and is simultaneously running a business in the name and style of “TVL Balaji Enterprises” in her own name. Contending that such conduct is in violation of the relevant Conduct Rules, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 13.10.2025 to the 2^nd respondent seeking disciplinary action. Since no orders were passed, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3^rd respondent, who is working as an Assistant Professor in the 2^nd respondent College is also running a business. In the above regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the 2^nd respondent on 13.10.2025. Hence, it would suffice, if a direction is issued by this Court to consider the petiitoner’s representation dated 13.10.2025, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent is purely a private civil dispute arising out of landlord–tenant relationship, which is already pending before the competent criminal court. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the typed set of papers. Since no adverse orders are passed as against the 3^rd respondent, notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with.

7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction to settle a private dispute or to compel disciplinary action on that basis. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any positive directions to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

18.02.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No vsi2 To

1. The Director of Collegiate Education Education Department, No 577, Anna Salai, Saidap