1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated :24.06.2011 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice G.M.AKBAR ALI Writ Appeal (MD) No.560 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Kiragori,S/o.Sebastian ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District. 3.Sebastiarkovil Trust, rep.by its President John Rasu, Vallayampatti Village, Pulikanmai- Post, Kalayarkovil-via, Sivagangai Taluk & District. 4.Sebastiarkovil Trust, rep.by its Secretary Raja, Vallayampatti Village, Pulikanmai- Post, Kalayarkovil-via, Sivagangai Taluk & District. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 01.06.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.5802 of 2011. W.P.(MD)No.5802 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to ensure the due process of law in the petitioner's shop (E.B.Connection No.152) situated in South Side of the Sebathiarkovil Arch, Valayampatti Village, Pulikanmoi Post, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District by clearing the unlawful hindrance placed by the third and fourth respondents. For Appellant : Mr.L.Madhusudhanan For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, 1 & 2 Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.RAJESWARAN,J) This writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.06.2011 in W.P.(MD)No.5802 of 2011. 2. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that he is a tenant under the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondents, private trust. He has also got electricity connection for the property in which he is a tenant. While so, the private respondents are causing unlawful hindrance prohibiting access to his shop by dumping gravel. A complaint was given to the 2nd respondent police and a case was also registered. He had also filed a suit in O.S.No.59/2011 before the District Munsif, Court, Sivagangai. He had filed an interlocutory application in the said suit for injunction and obtained an order of status-quo on 06.04.2011. Despite that, the hindrance made by the 3rd and the 4th respondents are continuing. Therefore, left with no other alternative remedy, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the writ petition for a mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to ensure that due process of law is followed in the matter of petitioner's shop situated on the southern side of Sebasthirkovil Arch, Valayampatti Village, Pulikanmoi Post, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagngai District, by clearing the unlawful hindrance placed by the 3rd and the 4th respondents. 3. The said writ petition was dismissed at the stage of admission itself by the learned Single Judge holding that the relief sought for in the writ petition for removal of obstruction said to have been caused by the private individuals, namely the 3rd and the 4th respondents, cannot be gone into while dealing with the writ petitio under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By holding so, the writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. We have also gone through the documents available on record. 5. Though the learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to argue the matter on merits, we are unable to appreciate his contention for the reason that the relief sought for in the writ petition is one of facts which could only be gone into by a proper civil forum. Admittedly, the petitioner has also filed a suit and the same is pending on the file of District Munsif, Sivagangai, in O.S.No.59/2011. An order of status-quo is also subsisting as on date. Therefore, after having availed the civil remedy by filing a suit, it is not open to the appellant/writ petitioner to file a writ petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as factual aspects cannot be gone into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 in the writ petition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge, in our considered view, has rightly considered the issue and dismissed the writ petition as one not maintainable. 6. We do not find any merit in the writ appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for any other remedy available to him under law. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Kalayarkovil Police Station, Kalayarkovil, Sivagangai District. +1 CC to Mr.C.Madhusudhanan, Advocate (SR.No.20461) Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.560/2011 M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Date:24.06.2011 gb NSV/8.7.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/