IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.12.2011

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

W.P.NO.1643 OF 2011

M.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2011

1.U.Ramachandran

Son of Ulagappan

President

Mandapam Union President's Association

Nagachi, Uchipuli Post,

Ramanathapuram Taluk and District.

2.Ramanathapuram Bar Association (Regd.)

Represented by its Secretary

S.Arshad Hussein

...

Petitioners

Versus

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

Rep. by its Secretary to the Government

Law Department

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.High Court of Judicature at Madras

Represented by its Registrar (General)

High Court Buildings

I Floor, Chennai – 600 104.

3.The District Collector

Ramanathapuram District,

Ramanathapuram.

... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to

call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in its

proceedings ROC No.379-C/2008/G/Judn No:VI(1)/262/2010 dated

17.06.2010 published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.26, dated

07.07.2010 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without

jurisdiction and to further forbear the respondents from transferring

the Mandapam Firka from Ramanathapuram Taluk and attaching with

Rameswaram Taluk.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Respondents 1&3 :

Mr.V.Subbiah

Special Government Pleader

For Respondent 2

:

Mr.P.K.Rajagopal

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to

quash the proceedings dated 17.06.2010 of the second respondent

relating to realignment of civil jurisdiction, by detaching Mandapam

Firka of Ramanathapuram Taluk, under the jurisdiction of District

Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and attaching the same under the

jurisdiction of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,

Rameswaram and the publication of the aforesaid proceedings in the

Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 07.07.2010.

2.The first petitioner is the President of Mandapam Union

President's Association, a registered body consisting of President,

Secretary and other Office Bearers of the Panchayat Units in Mandapam

Union. The second petitioner is the Ramanathapuram Bar Association

and the Advocates practicing in various Courts within the District

jurisdiction of Ramanathapuram are its Members.

3.The petitioners have made the following objections for

realignment of jurisdiction:

(a) Realignment is based on the revenue

classification namely Firka and instead it should be

based on the villages.

(b) The impugned realignment is opposed to the

rule found in the High Court's Circular No.1792 of

1879 in Volume – II, Chapter – II, the Civil Rules

of practice and circular orders of the High Court of

Judicature at Madras.

According to the petitioners, before effecting

any realignment in the Civil Jurisdiction, a report

from the District Collector shall be obtained and

the same shall be forwarded to the second respondent

for its consideration, as per Circular No.1792 of

1879.

(c) Public hearing shall be held before

realignment.

(d) The impugned realignment have made the

litigant public to travel a long distance.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The second respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting

the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the

Circular No.1792 of 1879 does not make it incumbent upon the District

Judge to call for suggestions, even if the Chief Executive Officer of

a District does not offer the same. It is also stated that there is

no requirement to hear the public, prior to redistribution of local

jurisdiction of Civil Courts. It is further stated that there was a

request from the Advocate Association, Rameswaram to redraw the civil

jurisdiction of the Munsif Courts concerne