Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PRESIDENT, PANCHAYAT UNION COUNCIL versus P.K. MUTHUSAMY & OTHERS

Decided
27 July 2009
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. GANGULY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 467 · 2009 INSC 953

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

p. 468, margin B

This Appeal, by grant of special leave, has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras dated 19th February, 2008.

p. 468, margin C

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,

p. 468, margin C

the High Court has directed that the old Block Development Office building shall be allotted for the aforesaid Court.

p. 468, margin C

In our view, it was not within the jurisdiction of the High Court to pass the aforesaid Order. We can understood t-he High

p. 468, margin E

Court's concern th~' there should be proper accommoda~ion for the Munsifs Court, but for that 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

p. 468, margin E

been repreatedly saying that the judiciary should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the exectuive 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

p. 468, margin F

be restraint in these matter on the part of the judicaiary. We are confindent 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.

pp. 468–469, margin G

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 reslove the problem as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months' from today. No order as to costs.

p. 469, margin B

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu as well as Registrar General of the Madras High Court. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 469, margin C