The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ of mandamus where the petitioner, lacking personal or public interest, sought inquiry into an allegedly forged certificate. The Court reaffirmed that locus standi is indispensable for such petitions, following established precedent. The decision is binding on subordinate courts, clarifying procedural safeguards in challenges to administrative actions in the revenue sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(MD)/28968/2025 of Ramkumar Vs The District Collector |
| CNR | HCMD011397272025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge, Madurai Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Revenue Proceedings |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the issuance of the certificate, as he was neither directly affected by it nor pursuing a public interest litigation. The Court emphasised that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked at the behest of parties who only raise proxy claims or act on behalf of others without demonstrating personal or public injury. Mere allegation of forgery, in the absence of direct interest and bonafide, is insufficient to trigger judicial inquiry by way of mandamus. The filing of the petition as a personal grievance is a fundamental requirement; absence thereof is fatal to maintainability. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | W.P.(MD) No.4778 of 2025 (order dated 02.07.2025) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, citing his post as General Secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha, sought an inquiry into a “forged” certificate issued to the fourth respondent (T.Kovilpitchai) by the Tahsildar, with allegations that this allowed a questionable sale of property. Earlier, in W.P.(MD) No.4778 of 2025, related issues were litigated. The fourth respondent claimed the petitioner acted as a proxy for another party, with documentary support showing prior representations referenced another’s rights. The Court, examining the affidavit and materials, found lack of locus or public interest standing, and dismissed the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked where the petitioner has no direct or public interest in the grievance.
- Distinguishes personal grievances from those advanced on behalf of others (“proxy battles”).
- Lawyers must carefully plead and establish locus standi in all writ petitions not filed as PILs over administrative/revenue actions.
- Mere allegations of illegality (e.g., forgery) are not sufficient for mandamus in absence of direct and affected interest.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the petitioner’s standing and noted he neither claimed direct harm nor approached the Court in public interest.
- Documentary evidence and representations revealed the petitioner’s interest was indirect, referencing the rights of another (Ratheesh Kumar).
- Observing that an earlier writ petition (W.P.(MD) No.4778 of 2025) addressed the same subject matter, the Court found no new and independent cause shown by the petitioner.
- The petition read as an attempt to litigate on behalf of another party, which is not permissible unless filed as a PIL.
- The principle of locus standi was applied: only parties with direct or demonstrable interest may invoke writ jurisdiction in such cases.
- The Court dismissed the writ petition for want of maintainability.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a direction for the District Collector to conduct an inquiry into a “forged” certificate issued by the Tahsildar regarding a village property’s sale.
- Alleged the fourth respondent obtained and used the fraudulent certificate, affecting community interests.
Respondents
- State (R1-R3): Placed reliance on the earlier order in W.P.(MD) No.4778 of 2025, contending the petitioner’s issue had already been dealt with and did not merit further inquiry.
- Fourth Respondent: Alleged the petitioner lacked bona fides and was acting as a proxy for R. Ratheesh Kumar (party in the prior petition), supported by representation records showing petitioner’s claims related to Ratheesh Kumar’s rights.
Factual Background
The petitioner, General Secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha, challenged a certificate issued by the Tahsildar relating to land owned by multiple persons in Sri Venkateswarapuram, Sathankulam Taluk. He alleged the fourth respondent used a forged certificate to sell the property to third parties. Previous litigation regarding the same property and certification had occurred in W.P.(MD) No.4778 of 2025. The petitioner’s representation to the Tahsildar referred to the rights of another individual, R. Ratheesh Kumar.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment turns on Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ jurisdiction) and the principle of locus standi. The Court distinguishes between writ petitions motivated by personal grievance, public interest, and those seeking to advance claims of others without demonstrating direct or genuine interest.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions were issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed the principle of locus standi, consistent with settled law.