ITEM NO.65               COURT NO.10             SECTION XII

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).12587/2008

(From the  judgement  and  order  dated  19/02/2008  in   WP No.  30663/2007   of  The  HIGH  COURT OF MADRAS)

PRES.,PANCHAYAT UNION COUNCIL                     Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

P.K.MUTHUSAMY & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for permission to place addl. documents on record and prayer for interim relief  and office report ))

Date: 27/07/2009  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY

For Petitioner(s) Ms. N. Shoba,Adv. Mr. Sri Ram J Thalapathy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. V.Prabhakar, Adv.for Mrs.Revathy Raghavan,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Leave granted.

The Appeal is allowed in terms of the Reportable signed order. No order as to costs.

(Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master

( Indu Satija) Court Master

[Reportable Signed Order is placed on the File]

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4774  OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.12587 of 2008)

President, Panchayat Union Council ..Appellant

versus

P.K.Muthusamy & Others ..Respondents

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants. This  Appeal,  by  grant  of  special  leave,  has  been  filed  against  the  

impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 19th February, 2008.

It  appears  that  some  accommodation  was  required  for  the  District  

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court at Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District,  

Tamil Nadu.  By the impugned order, the High Court  has directed that the Old  

Block Development Office building shall be allotted for the aforesaid Court.

In our view, it was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass  

the aforesaid order.  We can understand the High Court's concern that there should  

be proper accommodation for the Munsif's Court, but for that  

-2-

purpose the High Court can only make a request to the Government and not direct  

the Government to allot or give a particular land or building which belongs to the

government or to anyone else.  This Court has been repreatedly saying  that the  

judiciary  should  not  ordinarily  encroach  into  the  domain  of  the  executive  or  

legislature,  vide Divisional  Manager, Aravali  Gold Club & Another vs. Chander  

Hass & Another, (2008) 1 SCC 683, Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2008) 5  

SCC 511, etc.  There must be restraint in these matters on the part of the judiciary.  

We are  confident  that  if  the  judiciary  makes a  request  to  the  Government,  the  

Government will consider that request with great respect and take suitable steps for  

the smooth functioning of the Court.   However,  but in such matters, the Court  

cannot direct the government to allot a particular land or building for that purpose.

Accordingly, we accept this appeal; set aside the impugned judgment of  

the High Court and request the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu to discuss the  

matter with the Registrar General of the High Court so as to resolve the problem as  

early as possible, preferably within a period of two months' from today.  No order  

as to costs.

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to  

-3-

the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu as well as Registrar General of the Madras  

High Court.

..........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ...........................J. JULY 27, 2009. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]