Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 211485 (MAD)

Suganthi v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government

WP(MD)/30779/2025 · 2025-10-30

G R Swaminathan

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P(MD)No.30779 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.30779 of 2025 Suganthi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State represented by The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 4.Kumaravel ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.30779 of 2025 respondent to take appropriate action against the Respondent No.2 for not executing the distraint warrant issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli even after sending 4 reminder notice in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Dr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.M.Gangatharan Government Advocate for R.1 to R.3 ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents. 2.The writ petitioner is the wife of the fourth respondent. The petitioner filed M.C.No.2 of 2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli and a maintenance order was also passed. To execute the same, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.784 of 2018. The fourth respondent neither appealed nor complied with the maintenance order. Hence, the trial Court issued restraint warrant. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.30779 of 2025 3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the restraint order was not executed by the second respondent and therefore the Government should initiate action against the second respondent. The very prayer is misconceived. The petitioner's objection should be to get the restraint order enforced. Instead of doing so, the petitioner wants to put pressure on the second respondent by filing this writ petition. Such writ petitions cannot be entertained. 4.This Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 30.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P(MD)No.30779 of 2025 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. MGA 3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Copy to The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. W.P(MD)No.30779 of 2025 30.10.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis