G KUMARASAMY Vs. CORPORATION OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred against the common order dated 28.4.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition 8493 and 10282 of 1984 respectively. W.A. No. 1262 of 1995 is preferred against the order passed in W.P. No. 8493 of 1984, whereas W.A. No. 1263 of 1995 is preferred against the order passed in W.P. No. 10282 of 1984. As the writ petitions have been dismissed subject to certain directions contained therein, the petitioner, who is common, in both the writ petitions, has come up in appeals.

(2.) IN W.P. No. 8493 of 1984, the petitioner sought for the issue of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Corporation of Madras (first respondent in the writ petition to take appropriate action against the second respondent (S. Marimuthu) as per order of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Rt. No. 236 dated 20th May, 1983 and under Sections 364-A and 380 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for furnishing false information and to demolish the una uthorised construction put up by him at No. 19, Kamarajar Salai, Madras-18.

(3.) WE will first take up W.A. No. 1263 of 1995, wherein not much arguments are advanced. The writ petition out of which this appeal arises has been dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the question as to fabrication of documents such as sale deeds and other documents is involved in O.S. No. 6725 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court filed by the second respondent in the writ petition against the writ petitioner and others; that those documents are the basis for the tide claimed by the plaintiff in that suit who is second respondent in the writ petition, therefore, it would not be proper for this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution either to decide the question as to whether the documents have been fabricated or issue a direction to the Commissioner of Police to investigate into the matter, as the fate of the complaint would depend upon the findings that would be recorded by the civil court in the said suit. WE do not see any flaw in the reasoning of the learned single Judge, nor any flaw is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The very documents the fabrication of which is alleged by the petitioner/appellant are the subject matter of the civil litigation between the parties. It is also submitted at the Bar that the parties have also adduced evidence in the said suit and the matter is at the final stage of hearing. Therefore, it is neither proper nor appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to issue a direction of the nature sought for in the writ petition. However, we make it clear that the refusal to issue a direction shall not be construed as accepting the case of either of the parties. The question as to fabrication of the documents has to be decided independently by the civil court, which is seized of the matter, without reference to the dismissal of the writ petition or writ appeal. WE accordingly, dismiss W.A. No. 1263 of 1995, and keep open all the contentions raised. There will be no order as to costs.