(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to take necessary disciplinary action against the respondents 3 to 6 for having indulged in illegal activities towards the petitioner and her property, situated at land and house, comprised in present Survey No.176B/9A1(part), (previously Survey No.176B/9A), situated at Chinnaobalapuram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the records.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the property, being land and house comprised in S.No.176B/9A1(part), (previously Survey No.176B/9A), situated at Chinnaobulapuram Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District; that the petition schedule property formed part of a larger extent of land, originally owned and possessed by her husband; that during the year 1999-2000, a portion of the land was acquired from her husband by the National Highways Authority for widening and laying of four-lane road of NH5; that thereafter her husband executed a sale deed in her favour in respect of the remaining portion of land, under a registered document dated 21.02.2005, which includes the petition schedule property; and that ever since, the execution of the sale deed, she has been in continuos possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. However, in the revenue records, the property continues to stand in the name of her husband.

                   2.1. The petitioner further contended that from and out of the property possessed by her, a portion of the property was again acquired during the year 2009 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1955 and thus, she is now in possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of land admeasuring 545 square feet, which is approximately 11 cents or above.

                   2.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that certain families residing adjacent to her property on the eastern side for the past 10 to 15 years, taking advantage of the death of her husband in the year 2013, tried and attempted to disturb her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also attempted to trespass into her property for their use as a means of ingress and egress to their houses from the main road, as the passage presently used by them is not convenient in terms of distance; and that as there is continuous and imminent threat to her life and property at the hands of the said strangers, she had filed a civil suit before the competent Court in O.S. No. 321 of 2018 and obtained an order of ad-interim injunction against the said strangers residing on the eastern side of her property; and that the interim order is in force and the suit is pending.

                   2.3. The petitioner contends that as the matter relating to the dispute stood thus between the petitioner and the strangers, the strangers approached and influenced the official respondents herein namely respondents 3 to 6, to lay a pathway across her property; that pursuant thereto, the respondents 3 to 6 along with some political personalities, trespassed upon her property on 18.01.2018 and threatened her with dire consequences; and that they openly declared they will throw her out from the property by acquiring the entire land for government purpose, without even considering that she is a lone woman, a widow and a helpless person.

                   2.4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that being faced with the aforesaid threats, she got issued a notice dated 22.01.2019 to respondents 1 to 6, thereby requesting respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary disciplinary action against the respondents 3 to 6 for having indulged in the aforesaid act of threatening her, which are unknown to law and also demoralising her character; and that though respondents 1 to 6 have received the said notice, no reply has been given by them till date.

                   2.5. The petitioner further contends that despite being served with notice, the respondents 3 to 6 along with the jurisdictional police and certain machinery, entered upon her property and in an illegal, atrocious and arrogant manner demolished the compound wall of her property, removed mud from a portion of the property and laid a pathway across her property, thereby enabling the strangers to use her land as a means of ingress and egress. Thus, the respondents 3 to 6 have acted like an anti-social element and behaved with her in unbecoming manner, which is nothing but demoralising a woman in public place.

                   2.6. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the road was laid in her property, the said strangers began sitting in the passage situated immediately in front of her house and created nuisance by consuming liquor; and that on 29.01.2019, the petitioner approached the 7th respondent, being the jurisdictional police authority and attempted to lodge a complaint; that though the 7th respondent received the complaint, the same was discarded without any action; that the petitioner was subjected to abusive remarks, threats and was sent out of the police station; and that the 7th respondent instead of maintaining law and order, is openly supporting the illegal acts of the strangers and wrongdoers and is threatening the petitioner to vacate and handover the property to persons of their choice.

                   2.7. The petitioner contended that being faced with the aforesaid situation, she approached and informed her counsel about the incidents that had occurred and requested her counsel to issue a notice to the respondents, requesting respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary disciplinary action against respondents 3 to 6.

                   2.8. The petitioner further contended that, despite receipt of the aforesaid notices issued through her counsel, the respondents officials failed to initiate any action against the respondents 3 to 6 and consequently, the petitioner is left with no alternative or efficacious remedy except to approach this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent.

                   3.1. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 by drawing the attention of this Court to the prayer made in the writ petition, submitted that the petitioner is a third party and as such, cannot seek initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the official respondents; that the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an employee is only vested with the employer and that a third party such as the petitioner cannot call upon the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate disciplinary proceedings without first availing the appropriate remedy available to her in law against the said alleged excesses committed by the officials in the discharge of their duties; that the petitioner in order to settle her civil dispute with the strangers, by the present proceedings is seeking to achieve the very relief sought for in the civil suit.

                   3.2. The 1st respondent in the counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner was persuaded by respondents 3 to 6, during the inspection conducted by them on 29.01.2019 to allow the irular residents to use about 40 square metres of her land as a temporary passage to reach the National Highway; that the petitioner was assured that proposals for acquisition of the said land would be initiated after obtaining permission from the higher authorities; and that in order to prevent the authorities from initiating land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner appears to have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

                   3.3. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable in law, since the petitioner, being a third party, has no locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction seeking initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the government officials, as such disciplinary proceedings can be initiated only by the government servants who are personally aggrieved or by the employer – State, which alone is competent to initiate action relating to conduct, discipline, posting, transfer and internal administration; and that a private individual or a stranger, having no employer-employee relationship, cannot seek a writ compelling initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Contending as above, the respondents seek for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

5. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, it is to be noted that when the matter was listed for final hearing on 17.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, this Court, taking note of the absence of the counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the matter was listed after a long time, adjourned the matter to 07.11.2025. On 07.11.2025, once again there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and since, the respondents had not filed their counter affidavit, this Court adjourned the matter to 28.11.2025 for filing the counter affidavit by the respondents. On 28.11.2025, upon the respondents filing their counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sough time to argue the matter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 09.12.2025 and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to file translated copies of the material papers for the consideration of this Court.

6. On 09.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner had not filed the translated copies of the material papers and therefore, this Court directed the matter to be listed under the caption ‘for orders’ on 10.12.2025 and informed the counsel for the petitioner that the matter would be decided on the basis of the documents available on record in English. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 10.12.2025.

7. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner was informed that the documents which are in vernacular language would not be considered, as the petitioner had failed to file translated copies of the said documents despite being granted sufficient time. Consequently, this Court is not in a position to consider the claim made in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to address this Court on the maintainability of the writ petition.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner cannot be treated as a third party, as the acts of the respondents 3 to 7 were directed against her and would amount to misconduct warranting initiation of disciplinary action by respondents 1 and 2. It is also submitted that the said respondents behaved in an unbecoming manner, demoralised a wo- man in a public place and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek initiation of disciplinary action against the said respondents. It was further contended that failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that though the petitioner claims to be an aggrieved person, she continues to be a third party insofar as initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the respondents 3 to 7 is concerned; and that only if the allegations made by the petitioner are proved, she can approach the competent authority seeking initiation of disciplinary action on the basis of such proved allegations.

10. I have taken note of the respective contentions.

11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that this Court cannot reject the writ petition on the ground of petitioner being a third party, as it is on account of the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in initiating disciplinary action against respondents 3 to 6 pursuant to the notice got issued through counsel on 22.01.2019 despite being informed of the well settled legal position is that an aggrieved person cannot seek initiation of disciplinary proceedings and no mandamus can be issued directing the concerned authorities to initiate disciplinary action. The learned counsel for the petitioner however insisted that this Court decide the said issue. Accordingly, I proceed to deal with the aforesaid contention.

12. In one of the earliest cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Prasad v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 313 in relation to the locus standi of persons seeking initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the Apex Court held that insofar as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the matter essentially lies between the employer and the employee and that strangers have no locus standi to seek initiation of disciplinary proceeding.

13. Following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Apex Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P.(MD). No.939 of 2018 dated 17.01.2018 in the case of V.Vijayalakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that the decision to initiate disciplinary action against the official concerned lies entirely with the employer and it is not open to the writ petitioner to seek for issuance of a writ of mandamus in this regard and the writ petitioner has no locus standi in the matter.

14. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Sudalaikannu v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Chennai, after referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjith Prasad v. Union of India, the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in V. Vijayalakshmi (supra) and the decision of this Court in K. Padma v. Vigilance Cell, Madras and Others as well as the decision of the Division Bench in W.P.(MD) No.6734 of 20227 in Sudalaikannu vs. The Secretary, held that a third party has no locus to maintain a writ petition in a service dispute and therefore, cannot set the law in motion by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the service side and ‘dismissed the writ petition’ by holding that extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to settle personal scores under the guise of a service dispute.

15. As noted herein above, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the respondents, she ought to have availed the remidies open to her in law, both on civil and criminal side including approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, on the 7th respondent failing to register a case or take appropriate action. Further, if the Superintendent of Police also failed to take any action, the petitioner could have approached the concerned Magistrate by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

16. Admittedly, no such action has been taken, nor it is shown to this Court that the petitioner having availed any such remedy insofar as 7th respondent is concerned. Further, with regard to the alleged misconduct and abuse of power by respondents, the petitioner could have availed appropriate remedies, including the writ remedy, to restrain the respondents from taking any action against her property except in accordance with law.

17. It is not shown to this Court of the petitioner initiating any action when the respondents allegedly attempted to dispossess her from her property. Instead, the petitioner sought initiation of disciplinary action by approaching respondents 1 and 2, without first lodging any complaint to enable the competent authority to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled by her against the said respondents. Rather, the petitioner sought immediate initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the said respondents.

18. Further, though the petitioner claimed of having filed a civil suit against the strangers at whose behest the respondents 3 to 6 are alleged to have acted and obtaining ad-interim injuction order which is claimed to be subsisting, no material is place before this Court to show the petitioner taking any steps for the alleged violation of the injunction order. The petitioner by approaching the civil Court which had granted injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also having sought from the authorised concerned sanction for prosecution against their alleged acts.

19. The petitioner instead of availing the various remedies open to her in law wherein the alleged acts stand proved, cannot straight away seek for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and approach this Court by filing writ petition alleging initiation on the part of the authorities in initiating disciplinary proceedings based on her complaint, for issuance of a writ of mandamus on service side.

20. The entire endeavour of the petitioner in the considered view of this Court is wholly misconceived and illadvised and amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. Though it is a fit case for imposition of costs, this Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a widow and a senior citizen aged about 66 years, refrains from imposing exemplary costs. However, the petitioner is warned not to resort to such adventurous acts.

21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.