Madras High Court: Court Not a Platform for Settling Personal Disputes

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable as it was filed to settle a personal dispute rather than for genuine public interest.

The present writ petition has been filed by R. Babu (Petitioner) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate action against R. Prabu (8th Respondent) for the alleged evasion of tax amounting to more than Rs. 50 crores.

Background of the case

The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 to 6 (GST Authorities) to initiate action against the 8th respondent (R.Prabu). The petitioner alleged that R. Prabu had evaded taxes by operating 40 shell companies in Karur and fraudulently claiming input tax credit through bogus invoices. The petition also sought recovery of the alleged evaded amount based on a complaint dated August 2, 2024.

Madras High Court Decision

When the matter was taken up, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Representing respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Senior Standing Counsel strongly opposed the petition, arguing that it was not maintainable. He further submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, sought personal relief against his own brother, who is the 8th respondent in the case.

The Bench, led by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, observed that the High Court cannot be used as a platform to ventilate personal grievances. The Court held that since the petition was essentially driven by a personal dispute, it was not maintainable as a petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. No costs were awarded.