Madras High CourtWP/27389/2016disposed of

Raja v. The Managing Director

2021-09-21Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21-09-2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM WP No.27389 of 2016 1.Raja 2.Santhi ..Petitioners vs.

1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., Dugar Towers, 6th Floor, No.123, Marshal Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

2. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Salem - 636 001.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Office of the DSP, Attur, Salem - 636 102.

4. The District Collector, Collector Office, Salem District - 636 001.

5. The Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation Ltd., No.7/257B, Lakshmi Complex, Adhvaidham, Ashram Road, nru;yd;!;.

Salem - 636 016.

6. The Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Thalaivasal, Salem District - 636 112.

7. R.Ramesh

8. Rajesh @ Rajeshkumar

9. Prathib Kumar ..Respondents

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 not to enroll the seventh respondent in view of the abovementioned irregularities and illegal activities of the seventh respondent either in his name or in the name of his benamis in the light of the letter dated 23.11.2015 of the respondents 1 to 5.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan For Respondents-1 and 5 : Mr.Abdul Saleem For Respondents-2to4 and6: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan, Government Advocate.

O R D E R

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to enroll the seventh respondent in view of the irregularities and illegal activities of the seventh respondent either in his name or in the name of his benamis in the light of the letter dated 23.11.2015.

2. The writ petition is filed in the year 2016.

3. The relief sought for is to direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to enroll the seventh respondent.

4. It is not made clear as to whether any such enrolment was made by the respondents 1 to 5. However, the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition need not be considered due to lapse of time and if at all any such allotment is made or otherwise, and if the petitioners are still aggrieved, they are at liberty to approach the Competent Authorities in the manner known to law. However, the relief, as such, sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted at this length of time.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Svn