01Facts
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), to conduct a peace committee meeting pursuant to proceedings issued by the third respondent, the Inspector of Police, dated 9 February 2024.
p. 1At the hearing, the State reported that the RDO had conducted an enquiry and passed an order on 11 September 2026.
p. 2The High Court recorded that order and closed the petition.
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether further directions were necessary after the RDO had conducted an enquiry and passed an order
p. 2, 7ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s continuing grievance against a private party should be pursued in the writ proceedings or before the jurisdictional civil court
p. 703Law Applied
The order cites no statute, precedent, or specific legal test.
p. 7It proceeds on the case-specific basis that, once the RDO had conducted the enquiry and passed an order, no further orders were necessary in the writ petition; any continuing grievance against a private party could be taken to the jurisdictional civil court for appropriate relief.
p. 704Reasoning
The relief sought concerned the RDO’s conduct of a peace committee process. Since the RDO had conducted an enquiry and made an order while the petition was pending, the Court considered further directions unnecessary and closed the petition.
p. 2, 7It did not adjudicate the merits of any dispute with a private party, instead directing the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the jurisdictional civil court if the grievance persisted.
p. 705Holding
The Court held that no further orders were necessary in light of the RDO’s order dated 11 September 2026 and closed the writ petition.
p. 7It left the petitioner free to approach the jurisdictional civil court regarding any continuing grievance against a private party.
p. 7Original Court PDF
MahalakshmivsThe State Rep by the The Revenue Divisional Office
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
