V.Kannan v. 1.The Tahsildar, Periakulam Taluk, Theni District.2.Mouryakrishna Chandrasekar, Additional Superintendent of Police, Office of the

W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022W.P.(MD)No.13241 of 2022:V.Kannan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District.2.Mouryakrishna ...RespondentsPRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation in Na.Ka.No.395/2021/A6 dated 01.03.2021 on the basis of enquiry and recorded the statement by the 1st respondent on 21.04.2022 by considering the petitioner's reminders dated 26.08.2021 and 15.11.2021 and pass appropriated orders in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.For Petitioner: Mr.P.Yogesh BabuFor R1: Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan Additional Government PleaderFor R2: Mr.Anantha Padmanabhan Senior Counsel for Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj*****COMMON ORDERBoth the writ petitions are filed by same person and for the same cause of action. Hence both the writ petitions were taken up and a common order is passed. 2.1 The W.P.(MD)No.5747 of 2025 is filed for issuance of Writ of 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to file a complaint before the Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate for the offense committed by the 2nd respondent.2.2. The W.P.(MD)No.13241 of 2022 is filed for Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2021 in Na.Ka.No.395/2021/A6 on the basis of enquiry and recorded the statement by the 1st respondent on 21.04.2022 by considering the petitioner's reminders dated 26.08.2021 and 15.11.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.3. The allegations against the 2nd respondent is that the 2nd respondent has obtained “OBC - Non-Creamy Layer” certificate by giving false information. Hence the petitioner had preferred complaint dated 01.03.2021 which was forwarded to the concerned authority vide Letter dated 12.04.2021 in Na.Ka.No.395/2021/A6. Based on the said complaint, already proceedings are initiated. 4. The Learned Government Pleader submitted that in the written instructions, dated 22.10.2024 the respondents have stated that they have initiated proceedings based on the complaint and the same is extracted under:'nghpaFsk; rhH-Ml;rpaH mtHfspd; fbjj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; ghHit 4-y; fhZk; fbjj;jpy; nrd;id jiyikr; nrayf muRr; 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022nrayH> gpw;gLj;jg;gl;NlhH kpfTk; gpw;gLj;jg;gl;NlhH kw;Wk; rpWghd;ikapdH eyj;Jiw (gprprp) mtHfspd; fbjk; e.f.vz;.1608066/gprprp/2021-1. ehs;.18.11.2011-d;gb nly;yp nghJ FiwjPH kw;Wk; Xa;T+jpa kj;jpa mikr;rf nrayhsH mtHfsplk; fUj;JUf;fs; Nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gb fUj;JUf;fs; tug;ngw;w gpd;dH kDjhuupd; kDtpd; kPJ ,Wjp KbT Nkw;nfhs;sg;gLk; vd;w tpguj;jpid njhptpj;J ,j;Jld; murpd; fbj efypid ,izj;jZg;gpAs;Nsd; vd;w tpguj;jpid njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;." 5. However, the Learned Counsels appearing for the 3rd respondent vehemently objected for the prayer to initiating action against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent submitted that the writ petitioner’s son Mr.Ramesh had married the 3rd respondent cousin Mrs.Sudha, but due to family disputes both of them are living separately. And the 3rd respondent or his family is not responsible for the same. But due to ill motive and personal vengeance, the petitioner had made false complaints against the 3rd respondent to various authorities. Also instigated others to file false complaints and cases against the 3rd respondent and his family. Further the allegation against the 3rd respondent is that the he had obtained “OBC - Non-Creamy Layer” by concealing the wealth of 30 crores and income of 60 lakhs. For the said allegation the 3rd respondent submitted that the wealth tax was abolished from 2015-2016 and the wealth cannot be taken for determining the prescribed income limit. Further the petitioner is citing 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022Agricultural College, but the same is being run by Trust and the 3rd respondent father is one of the trustees by paying Rs.10,000/-. As far as the income is concerned the 3rd respondent father is having rental income which is being shared by the 3rd respondent’s father and his brother. Further agricultural income cannot be taken into account for determining the prescribed income limit for issuing Non-Creamy Layer certificate. Infact based on allegation the 1st respondent had directed the 3rd respondent father to appear before him and the 3rd respondent father had produced the documents. The 1st respondent being satisfied had closed the complaint. In spite of the same the petitioner had pressurized to cancel the community certificate due to personal vengeance. Hence the 3rd respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court had given its anxious consideration. It is seen that earlier for the same prayer the petitioner had filed W.P.(MD)No.18638 of 2021 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.10.2021. The same was dismissed without any liberty to file fresh writ petition. It is pertinent to notice that the same was withdrawn after making substantial argument. Hence the present writ petition is hit by the principles of res-judicata. 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 20227. The petitioner cannot seek a direction to take action against the 3rd respondent, since the petitioner is not personally affected and the petitioner has no locus standi to seek cancellation of OBC certificate. It is settled principle that third party cannot approach the Court under Article 226 and the Learned Counsels had relied on the judgement rendered in Vinoy Kumar V. State of U.P. and others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 wherein it is stated as under: “2.Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas- corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason or poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief. ”6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022Referring to the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held in Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani rep. by its Secretary Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and 19 others reported in 2005 WLR 389 wherein it is held as under: “6. … This Court is being flooded with applications under Article 226of the Constitution which is seriously affecting the normal work of the Court. We feel that the time has come when we may point out that Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative method of redress to the normal process of a decision in an action brought in the usual courts established by law. The powers under this Article should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him". Another Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.18403 of 2017, vide order, dated 24.04.2019, has held as under: “10.The earlier Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner's counsel on similar grounds. Hence, the maintainability of the Writ Petition is raised not only with reference to the scope of enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but also by relying upon the principle of res judicata. Though the earlier order which has reached finality in a Writ Petition will operate as res judicata, the applicability of res judicata which bars any subsequent litigation is not applicable in every Public Interest Litigation. However, the bona fides of the petitioner can be tested by referring to the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14915 of 2014. The learned Counsel now appearing for the petitioner is the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition. The same grounds which are now available have been raised 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022therein and this Court found that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that the community certificate was obtained by the seventh respondent was vitiated for any reason. The present Writ Petition has been filed rasing similar grounds but with additional informations alleged to have been obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any material or statement from any one to disprove the community certificate issued to the seventh respondent. The petitioner has not explained the source of informations nor relied upon any authenticated document. The learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the discrepancies in the father's name in the community certificate and the school records. The admission register copy maintained by the school in which the seventh respondent did his schooling is produced before this Court in the paper book. As per this document, the name of the father of the seventh respondent is shown as Karuppa Kudumban. Similarly, the register of admissions and withdrawals would also indicate that the father name of seventh respondent is Karuppa Kudumban. The Secondary School Leaving Certificate signed by one Karuppa Kudumban as father of the seventh respondent also reveals that the father of the seventh respondent has signed as Karuppa Kudumban. In the community certificate issued to the seventh respondent, it is seen that the name of father of the seventh respondent is shown as Karuppasamy and his community status is given as Devendra Kulathan. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner focussed his argument on the discrepancy in the names. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the fifth respondent in his original counter affidavit dated 09.11.2017 has admitted that the biological father of seventh respondent is one Rangarajan who belonged to Madari community. It is to be noted that the information given by the fifth respondent in the said counter affidavit was not on the basis of any document or material but based on an enquiry by the fifth respondent. He would also say that he 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022came to understand that the father and mother of the seventh respondent belongs to Madari community (Arunthathiyar). The fifth respondent himself admits that he has no jurisdiction to enquiry into the community status of seventh respondent who hails from Udumalpet Taluk of Tiruppur District. Unless the source of information is revealed there is scope for further enquiry. This Court cannot act on the basis of an information which was not based on any lawful enquiry in exercise of power given to the fifth respondent. Strangely, the counter affidavit subsequently filed by the fifth respondent dated 05.01.2018 goes contrary to the statement he had made in the earlier counter affidavit. Hence, no credibility can be given to the counter affidavit of fifth respondent. An issue relating to a community certificate cannot be raised by a stranger and the petitioner's locus standi to raise this issue in this Public Interest Litigation has to be tested. The only plausible explanation comes from the petitioner is that the seventh respondent has contested and elected as Member of Legislative Assembly from Ottapidaram legislative constituency and served as an MLA for two times. It is further stated that the seventh respondent has cheated the Devendra Kulathan community people as the community people have lost their opportunity of contesting from Ottapidaram constituency as a Member of Legislative Assembly. In the present case, the petitioner's contention is that the seventh respondent belongs to Madari community (Arunthathiyar) which is also a community known as Scheduled Caste. Hence, this Court is also of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the community status of the seventh respondent which has already been decided in the earlier round. There is a presumption in favour of all official acts as per Section 114 of Evidence Act. Hence, absolutely no merits in this Writ Petition questioning the community certificate of seventh respondent. "9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022Following the aforesaid judgement, this Court is also of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and the petitioner is third party to the issuance of OBC certificate and has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. Therefore, on this ground the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Based on the allegation of issuance of “Non-Creamy Layer” certificate the 1st respondent had already conducted an enquiry and had closed the complaint. This Court also independently analyzed the issue. It is seen that the 3rd respondent’s father had filed Income Tax Returns which shows the income is Rs.5,51,433/- (agriculture income Rs.4,15,250/- + Other incomes (mostly rental income) Rs.1,36,183/-) per annum for the assessment year 2017-2018 and the same is below Rs.8,00,000/- which is the permissible limit. Likewise for the subsequent years, the income had reduced since there was “nil” income from the agriculture. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegation stated by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent is baseless. Furthermore, when the 1st respondent had considered the issue and closed the case, then it would be futile exercise to direct the respondents to conduct enquiry. 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 20229. Interestingly, the affidavit of the petitioner clearly establishes that the petitioner had filed these writ petitions to defame the 3rd respondent and to wreak vengeance and the relevant portion stated in W.P.(MD)No.13241 of 2022 is extracted hereunder: “4. I further submit that the above said Mourya Krishna taking advantage of his official position and richness, has been interfering with the matrimonial life of the my son and daughter-in-law who is cousin sister of the said Mourya Krishna and lived for long time as wife and husband and also blessed with two children out of which one son is already studying MBBS. Due to such acts on the part of the said Mourya Krishna the marital life of my son is in danger since he is influencing the police to take action against my son as well as my family members even though the same is a marital dispute”From the aforesaid averment it clearly establishes that the present two writ petitions are filed only to wreak vengeance against the 3rd respondent which is impermissible. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Even though this Court intended to impose cost, due to petitioner age this Court refrain from imposing cost. However, in further if the petitioner still files such frivolous litigations, then this Court would not show any sympathy to the petitioner. With this warning, this Court is dismissing the present two writ 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022petitions. No costs. 07.08.2025NCC: Yes / NoIndex: Yes / NoInternet: YesTmgTo1.The Tahsildar, Periakulam Taluk, Theni District.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District.12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022S.SRIMATHY , J. TmgW.P(MD)Nos.5747 of 2025 and 13241 of 2022DATED : 07.08.202513/13