K.R.Sudhakar, v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.02.2025 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.R.Sudhakar
...Petitioner
Versus
1.The District Collector, Kanchipuram.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Lathur Panchayat Union @ Pavanjur, Cheyyur T.K., Kancheepuram Distict.
3.The President, Adayalacheri Panchayat, Lathur Panchayat Union @ Pavanjur, Cheyyur T.K.
Kanchipuram District.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the order dated 25.04.2007 in G.O.Form Na.Ka.No.1612/2007/Paa Aaa 4 dated 25.04.2007 quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service, all other attendant benefits with effect from 25.10.2006.
1/6
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Sunilkumar For Respondents - 1 & 2:
Mr.R.Kumaravel, Additional Government Pleader For Respondent - 3 :
Mr.V.R.Thangavelu (Appearance of the Counsel is dispensed with vide order dated 03.02.2025)
ORDER
Heard Mr.R.Sunilkumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Kumaravel, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 & 2.
2. The relief sought in this writ petition is to quash the Order dated 25.04.2007 in G.O.Form Na.Ka.No.1612/2007/Paa Aaa 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order') and to direct the 3rd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service along with all other attendant benefits with effect from 25.10.2006.
3. The factual background of this case is that the 2nd Respondent had sent a communication dated 23.09.2008 to the Petitioner. In the said 2/6
communication, the 2nd Respondent had enclosed a Letter dated 22.09.2008 of the 3rd Respondent alleging that as per the order of the 1st Respondent, the Petitioner was dismissed from service vide Impugned Order. Aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition for the relief stated supra. However, till date, the Petitioner has not been served with a copy of the Impugned Order.
4. On 22.09.2022, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd Respondent filed a Memo stating that he has no instructions from the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, this Court had directed the Registry to print the name of the 3rd Respondent in the cause list and also, to issue notice to the 3rd Respondent returnable by 26.10.2022.
5. Despite the service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 3rd Respondent. Hence, recording the Memo dated 22.09.2022 filed by the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent, the appearance of the counsel for the 3rd Respondent is dispensed with.
3/6
6. Since this writ petition is pending from the year 2010 and there is no instruction from the contesting 3rd Respondent, I see no useful purpose in retaining this writ petition on the file of this Court.
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd Respondent to serve a copy of the impugned G.O.Form Na.Ka.No.1612/2007/Paa Aaa 4 dated 25.04.2007 to the Petitioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to challenge the impugned G.O.Form.Na.Ka.No.1612/2007/Paa Aaa 4 dated 25.04.2007 in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.02.2025 mrr Index : Yes/No Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order 4/6
To 1.The District Collector, Kanchipuram.
2.The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), Lathur Panchayat Union @ Pavanjur, Cheyyur T.K., Kancheepuram Distict.
3.The President, Adayalacheri Panchayat, Lathur Panchayat Union @ Pavanjur, Cheyyur T.K.
Kanchipuram District.
5/6
C.SARAVANAN, J.
mrr 03.02.2025 6/6