M.Dinesh Kumar, 37 Years v. The Managing Director,

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 05.9.2017 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.23857 of 2017 M.Dinesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The Managing Director, TASMAC, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, CMDA Tower, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai-8.

2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, LLA Building, 4th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

3.The District Manager, TASMAC, Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur East District.

4.Ramkumar

...Respondents

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 3 to consider the representation dated 26.5.2017 of the petitioner on merits. For Petitioner :

Ms.Lesi Saravanan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.Arumugha Rajan

ORDER

Mr.Arumugha Rajan, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. Heard both. In view of the limited relief this Court wishes to grant in this writ petition, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal without ordering notice to the fourth respondent.

2. The petitioner, who is employed as a shop supervisor in shop No.8843, established and run by the respondent Corporation, has come forward with this writ petition to direct respondents 1 and 3 to dispose of his representations dated 19.4.2017 and 26.5.2017. In the said representations, the petitioner would allege that the fourth respondent, who is a licensee authorized to collect empty cartons and empty bottles in the bar attached to shop No.8843, has been paying substantially low amount of money for the carton boxes by classifying the same as damaged pieces, when they are all new boxes, which will fetch adequate price. On account of the low amount of money paid by the fourth respondent, the petitioner and other employees of the concerned shop are compelled to make good the deficit by remitting the balance amount to the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the intervention of respondents 1 and 3 in the matter, so that appropriate price could be realized for the empty carton boxes.

3. Admittedly, the matter relates to administering the internal business of the respondent Corporation and this Court cannot step into the same and issue directions as to in what manner they have to conduct themselves. However, the petitioner, who is an employee of the respondent Corporation,

is before this Court stating that he and other co-employees are put to financial loss on account of certain alleged illegality committed by the fourth respondent. Since this writ petition is disposed of without ordering notice to the fourth respondent, no positive direction can be granted as sought for by the petitioner. But, it would suffice to direct the second respondent to take note of the representation dated 19.4.2017.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take note of the representation of the petitioner dated 19.4.2017, issue notice to the petitioner and other employees of the shop as well as the fourth respondent, consider the grievance in a proper manner and pass a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 05.9.2017 Internet : Yes To 1.The Managing Director, TASMAC, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, CMDA Tower, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai-8.

2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, LLA Building, 4th Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 3.The District Manager, TASMAC, Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur East District. RS

T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J RS WP.No.23857 of 2017 05.9.2017