Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a petition to prevent social boycott/ex-communication of the petitioner and his family members by a society, the Madras High Court recently directed the concerned District Collector to constitute a committee to enquire into the matter and file a report before it.

While passing the order, the single judge bench of Dr Justice D Nagarjun noted that it was alleged that since the petitioner, a member of a Rajapalayam Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Society, had used excess water for his shop, he had been asked to pay a fine of Rs 15,000 and when he denied doing so, he and his family had been boycotted.

"It is surprising to note that in the era of Chandrajan, “Panchayat” was conducted and a fine of Rs.15,000/- was imposed on the petitioner without any authority (sic)," court observed. 

"There is no law, statute procedure and bye-laws, under which, such amount of Rs.15,000/- has been imposed," it added.

The case of the petitioner was that the Rajapalayam Hindu Nadar Uravinmurai Society was established to raise contributions from the Hindu Nadar residing at Rajapalaym for the betterment of the members of the Society. The said Society also owned a shopping complex in Kamarajar Nagar, Rajapalayam, in which, the petitioner had rented three shops in the year 1998.

In 2022, the petitioner requested the Society to permit him to use the bore-well water for his shops which were in a dilapidated condition. However, before the representation of the petitioner could be decided, it was found that without prior approval of the Society, he had been using the bore-well water. 

Thereafter, the petitioner was asked by the representatives of the Society to vacate the shops. When he denied doing so, his shops were illegally closed, his belongings were thrown out and he was asked to pay a fine to get a key for the rental shops. Opposing this, the petitioner filed a criminal case against the representatives of the Society.

However, despite the registration of the criminal case, a Kattapanchayat was conducted by the Society and the petitioner and his family members were ex-communicated and the Nadar Uravimurai community people were directed not to allow him and his family in the Society temple as well. 

On the other hand, in their counter affidavit to the writ petition, the respondent Society members claimed that the petitioner used to play the sound system loudly and used to pick up quarrels with the adjacent tenants, and he himself had closed the shops after filing the criminal case. 

They argued that if the petitioner was forcibly evicted, he should have approached the Civil Court instead of the high court. 

Apart that, the Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the concerned district administration submitted that an inquiry had been conducted in which 20 persons were examined in that locality but it revealed no practice of ex-communication against the petitioner. 

The high court pointed out that though the police had reported that they made an enquiry with 20 persons in that locality and found that there was no ex-communication but Police's report did not reveal as to whom they had enquired. 

The Police should have enquired the petitioner and his family members and others, the court opined. 

Since the Police have not placed any details in respect of the enquiry conducted by the police in respect of ex-communication and that the petitioner vehemently submitted that the ex-communication/social boycotting is being practiced...this Court is of the opinion that a proper enquiry is required to be done in respect of this, court held. 

While posting the matter for further hearing on October 31, 2023, court sought the report of the enquiry in respect of ex-communication in the village on or before the next hearing. 

Case Title: Muthupalam v. The District Collector, Virudhunagar and Others