L.Rajaraman v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN L.Rajaraman ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu, Principal Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), C.M.D.A. Tower - II, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore - 607 001.
4.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Cuddalore District, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kudikadu, Cuddalore - 607 005.
... Respondents 1/5
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2025. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate (for R1 & R3) Mr.N.Balakrishnan, Standing Counsel (for R2 & R4) *****
O R D E R
The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer for issuing a Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.01.2025.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a physically challenged person with 70% disability. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that on 02.01.2004, the fourth respondent issued an appointment order and appointed him as a Salesman in Kattuparur Village, Cuddalore District, and later transferred him to Shop No. 2639 at A.Palayam, Cuddalore District. Meanwhile, due to health issues, the petitioner took leave 2/5
in 2004, and thereafter, from 2007, he faced another problem of family issues. Therefore, he was unable to join duty since 2004. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation dated 06.01.2025, which is pending before the second respondent.
3. At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second and fourth respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner has been unauthorizedly absent since 2004, and after a period of 21 years, he cannot approach this Court to consider his representation. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5. By sending the representation and filing a writ of mandamus, the petitioner cannot revive a dead cause of action. In the case at hand, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent since 2004 and approached this Court only in 2025, i.e., after two decades. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in granting an order of mandamus.
3/5
6. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 07.08.2025 kv Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), C.M.D.A. Tower - II, 4th Floor, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore - 607 001.
4.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Cuddalore District, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kudikadu, Cuddalore - 607 005.
4/5
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv 07.08.2025 5/5