The Chairman v. P.R. Nishanth
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Tmt.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN C.M.P. No.15445 of 2017 and W.A. No.SR11303 of 2016
1. The Chairman Corporation Limited, No.144 Anna Salai, Chennai - 2
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Corporation Limited, Chennai - 2
3. The Chief Engineer North Chennai Thermal Power Station Chennai - 120
4. The Superintending Engineer (O&M) North Chennai Thermal Power Station Chennai - 120 ... Appellants
Versus
1.P.R.Nishanth 2.The District Revenue Officer Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur ... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order IV, R9(4) of A.S.Rules to condone the delay of 467 days in representation of the above Writ Appeal in W.A.Sr.11303 of 2016.
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 24.07.2013 made in W.P. No.20205 of 2013.
W.P.No.20205 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to provide suitable employment to the Petitioner in the Respondent's Board on the basis of the representation dated 04.05.2013 in the light of order passed in W.P.Nos.13789, 13790 & 13791 of 2011, dated 22.09.2011.
For Appellants : Mrs.R.Varalakshmi
JUDGMENT
(Made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) Delay in re-presentation is condoned. As no adverse orders are passed, appeal itself is heard and disposed of by this judgment.
2. Order impugned before us, is a direction made in W.P. No.20205 of 2013 dated 24.07.2013, by which, the writ court has directed the respondents therein/appellants herein, to dispose of the representation of the 1st respondent's father dated 04.05.2013, on merits and in accordance with law, and also in the light of the orders passed in W.P. Nos.13789, 13790 and 13791 of 2011 dated 22.09.2011, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt a copy of the said order.
3. On this day, when the writ appeal came up for hearing along with the condone delay petition in re-presentation, Mrs.R.Varalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that, in compliance with the directions of the writ court, in W.P. No.20205 of 2013, orders have been passed.
4. When the learned counsel for the appellants, was posed with a question as to why instant writ appeal has been filed, wherein a mere direction has been given to consider the representation, she submitted that in most of the cases for non-consideration of the representation within time or whenever the representation is rejected, contempt applications are filed and that is the reason why the initial direction issued by the writ court, to dispose of the representation, is challenged. Such a fallacious contention cannot be accepted. Writ appeal is misconceived and hence rejected. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar asr To
1. The Chairman Corporation Limited, No.144 Anna Salai, Chennai - 2
2. The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Corporation Limited, Chennai - 2
3. The Chief Engineer North Chennai Thermal Power Station Chennai - 120
4. The Superintending Engineer (O&M) North Chennai Thermal Power Station Chennai - 120
5. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
C.M.P. No.15445 of 2017 and W.A. No.SR11303 of 2016 SSI(CO) CA(01/11/2017)