Madras High CourtWP/17380/2020dismissed

P.Kaliya Perumal v. The Director,

2020-12-08Honourable Mr Justice V. Parthiban3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:08.12.2020 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice V.PARTHIBAN W.P.No.17380 of 2020 P.Kaliya Perumal ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Director, Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 600 051

2. The Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 600 051

3. The Assistant Commissioner/ Deputy Registrar, Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai - 600 051

4. The Deputy Registrar, Milk Production and Dairy Development Department, No.7, Bharathiyar Street, salamedu, Villupuram - 605 602.

5. The President (In-charge) TND 145 Koogaiyur Co-op. Milk Producers Society, Koogaiyur Post, Chinna Salem Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

6. Mr.Sivamani, S/o Royar, Working as Milk measurer at TND 145 Koogaiyur Milk production Cooperative Society, Koogaiyur Post, Chinna Salem Taluk, Kallakurichi District.

... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to consider and pass orders on the

representation of the petitioner dated 25.09.2020 submitted for seeking necessary action by way of conducting Enquiry and Departmental action against the illegal activities of the 6th respondent the Milk Measurer of TND 145 Koogaiyur Milk Production Co-operative Society.

F0or Petitioner .. Mr.V.R.Appaswamee For Respondents .. Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader for R1 to R5

ORDER

The matter is taken up through web hearing.

2.The petitioner claims to have served as Vice President 145 TND Koogaiyur Milk Production Co-operative Society during the period from 2013 to 2018. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent who has been working along with the petitioner has been indulging in acts of irregularity against the interest of the society. The petitioner claims to have obtained several documents under Right to Information Act supporting the allegation of corrupt practice indulged in, by the 6th respondent.

3. In this connection, the petitioner appears to have sent representation to the respondents 1 to 5 requesting them to take action against the 6th respondent and as no action was forthcoming from them, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. This Court, time and again, has deprecated the practice of dragging the Constitutional Court into settling personal scores of individuals with one another. In case, the petitioner has any genuine grievance against the working of the Society in which he was associated as Vice President for some time, it is always open to him to move the appropriate forum for redressing his grievance. It is certainly not open to him to seek a direction from this Court on the basis of his self serving averments.

5. This Court, while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot issue a blanket direction on the basis of the averments of the petitioner for taking action against the 6th respondent. If such direction is to be issued, it will only facilitate the petitioner to achieve his personal agenda and this Court would unwittingly become a party to machination of the petitioner in settling his personal scores with the 6th respondent. This kind of litigation, in the opinion of this

Court is motivated, lacking in bonafides and cannot be entertained. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Cj conf) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi To