1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY WA(MD)No.442 of 2011 & MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 Jeya Balakrishnan :Appellant/Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. 2.Raveendran :Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated 17.03.2011 made in W.P. (MD) No.2175 of 2011 presented to this court under article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in order No.Pa.Mu.6706/2010/A4, dated 20.01.2011 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For appellant :Mr. M.V. Venkataseshan For R1 :Mr. R. Janakiramulu,Spl. Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ appeal is filed as against the order dated 17.03.2011 passed in W.P.(MD) No.2175 of 2011 wherein the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.01.2011 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukkottai, on the ground that he does not have jurisdiction to pass the said order. 2.But, a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that as far as this issue is concerned, even as per the impugned order, statutory alternative remedy is available before the District Revenue Officer. 3.But, according to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, though a statutory alternative remedy is available, since a civil suit is pending wherein the relief sought by the appellant/writ petitioner is an order of injunction as against the private respondent and also the official respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer does not have jurisdiction and only the Commissioner of Municipality is the competent authority to pass orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.As far as these submissions are concerned, no rule has been brought to the notice of this Court as per which the Commissioner of Municipality is empowered to deal with the issue. However, without going into the merits of the issue, since the writ petition has been dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, we are of the opinion that the finding of the learned Single Judge is a sustainable one and we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, it is open to the appellant/writ petitioner to avail the statutory alternative remedy. 5.According to the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the time for filing an appeal has already expired. In view of this submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, 10 days time from 25.04.2011 is granted to the appellant/writ petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pattukottai. +1CC to The Special Government Pleader. SR.No.14619. Cad RP/28.04.2011/2P/3C. W.A. (MD) No.442 of 2011 20.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/