Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Velliyammal, challenging an order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (second respondent) in Pa.Mu.8910/2023 (A5) and seeking to sustain an earlier order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the same authority. The petitioner contended that the second respondent could not have taken up the matter again and passed a subsequent contradictory order within a span of 12 days, especially when the fourth respondent had been put on notice in the impugned proceedings and could have preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The Additional Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 to 3, submitted that the department's records did not show any service of notice on the fourth respondent before the first order dated 06.02.2024, nor was the petitioner served with any notice before the second order dated 19.02.2024. The court heard the submissions and noted the peculiar facts and circumstances, but the judgment text ends abruptly without recording the final decision.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Right to Notice - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 06.02.2024 without serving notice on the fourth respondent, and thereafter passed a contradictory order on 19.02.2024 without notice to the petitioner. The Additional Government Pleader conceded that the department's records did not show service of notice for either order. The court took note of this procedural irregularity but the final order is not available in the provided text. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer could pass a subsequent order contrary to his earlier order without notice to the affected party, and whether the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is violative of principles of natural justice
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 322
W.P.(MD)No.7953 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7220, 7222 & 7224 of 2024
Mr.K.R.Laxman, Mr.B.Saravanan, Mr.R.J.Karthick
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram; 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District; 3.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District; 4.L.Balusamy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and seeking to sustain an earlier order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 19.02.2024 and direct the respondents to sustain the original order dated 06.02.2024.
Filing Reason
The second respondent passed two contradictory orders within 12 days, and the later order was passed without notice to the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the Revenue Divisional Officer could pass a subsequent order contrary to his earlier order without notice to the affected party?
Whether the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 is violative of principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: The second respondent had already passed an order on 06.02.2024 and could not take up the matter again and pass a subsequent order within 12 days. The fourth respondent was put on notice in the impugned proceedings and if aggrieved, should appeal to the first respondent.
Additional Government Pleader: There is no record of notice being served on the fourth respondent before the first order dated 06.02.2024, nor was the writ petitioner served with notice before the second order dated 19.02.2024.
Judgment Excerpts
The primordial contention of the writ petitioner is that when the second respondent had already passed an order on 06.02.2025, the second respondent could not have taken up the matter once again and pass a subsequent order dated 19.02.2024, within a span of 12 days.
Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that in the records of the respondents, there is no document to show that notices were actually served on the fourth respondent before the first order dated 06.02.2025, came to be passed. Equally, there is also no record to show that before the second order came to be passed on 19.02.2024, the writ petitioner was served with any notice.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed writ petition challenging order dated 19.02.2024 passed by second respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) in Pa.Mu.8910/2023 (A5) and sought to sustain earlier order dated 06.02.2024. The matter came up before Justice P.B.Balaji on 07.03.2025. Heard arguments from both sides. The judgment remains incomplete in provided text.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
