Dismissing a plea relating to a land dispute wherein the petitioner moved the court within just three days of giving a representation to the Revenue department relating to a row over transfer of patta.
Pointing out that the representation was submitted on January 22 and the writ petition was filed on January 25, Justice V Parthiban said: “This is yet another case of one misusing the mandamus (seeking directions) jurisdiction of this court by the litigant.”
The attempt by the petitioner amounted to gross abuse of process of law, the judge said. “Although this court originally was inclined to impose exemplary cost on the petitioner, however, considering the status of the petitioner, it refrained from doing so,” the judge said.
He further noted that without waiting for a reasonable time so as to enable the officials to take action on the representation, the petitioner needlessly and hurriedly rushed to the court by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court.
“Even otherwise, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to approach this court, as no action has been taken by the Revenue officials either adverse to the interest of the petitioner or otherwise. Therefore, the present writ petition is completely misconceived and also pre-mature,” Justice Parthiban added.