R.Senthil Rayar, v. The Director Of Sugar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.11.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.29315 of 2017 and WMP Nos.31560 and 31561 of 2017 R.Senthil Rayar .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director of Sugar Office of the Director of Sugar, No.690, Anna Salai, E.V.R.Periyar Maligai 1st Floor, Chennai 600 035.

2.The Administrator, M.R.Krishnamurthy Co-operative Sugar Mill, Senthiyathope, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.

3.E.Ramu 4.K.Nehru 5.S.Elangovan 6.S.Natarajan 3 to 6 are employed at NPKRR Cooperative Sugar Mill, Talainayar II Bit, Tamilnadu 609 201.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent pertains to the impugned order bearing RC.No.10674/SL2/2016 dated 20.10.2017 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram

O R D E R

The petitioner claiming to be a sugarcane producer and supplier of the sugarcane to the second respondent Co-

operative Sugar Mill has chosen to file this writ petition, questioning the order of the first respondent dated 20.10.2017, transferring four officers from NPKRR Cooperative Sugar Mills to the second respondent Sugar Mill on the ground that such transfer order followed by accommodation of these four officers in the second respondent Mill will spoil the interest of the second respondent sugar Mill, which according to the petitioner, is already running in loss.

2.First of all, this Court is not in a position to appreciate as to the locus standi of the petitioner to question a transfer order issued by the first respondent, transferring four officers from another Mill to the second respondent Sugar Mill. The petitioner is only a sugar cane producer and supplier to the second respondent Mill. If the petitioner is having any grievance against non payment of his dues by the second respondent sugar Mill, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law by initiating appropriate proceedings and on the other hand, filing the present writ petition and challenging the transfer order issued by the first respondent cannot be appreciated as a proper course of action to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner against the second respondent sugar Mill. The transfer order is an administrative order issued by the first respondent transferring the officers from one sugar Mill to another and hence certainly, the petitioner cannot be the aggrieved person. Therefore, I find that the present writ petition is totally misconceived.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vri To 1.The Director of Sugar Office of the Director of Sugar, No.690, Anna Salai, E.V.R.Periyar Maligai 1st Floor, Chennai 600 035.

2.The Administrator, M.R.Krishnamurthy Co-operative Sugar Mill, Senthiyathope, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.

+1cc to Mr.P.R.Neelakandan, Advocate, S.R.No.82504 +1cc to Mr.R.Balaramesh, Advocate, S.R.No.82716 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.82876 W.P.No.29315 of 2017 RRK(28/11/2017)