The Ashram Matriculation v. Ch.Venkateswarlu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 26.08.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH Rev.Aplw.No.50 of 2016 in W.P.No.11232 of 2015 The Ashram Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Principal Old No.20, New No.8, Race Course Road,Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
.. Petitioner
Versus
1.Ch.Venkateswaralu 2.The Joint Director, Directorate of Matriculation Schools, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Hr.
Secondary School Campus, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
4.Sri Raghavendra Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary Mrs.Latha Rajinikanth No.99-A Velachery Road, Velachery, Chennai - 600 042.
5.Sri Rajinikanth Founder Trustee, Sri Raghavendra Educational Society, No.29-B Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.
.. Respondents Prayer: This Review Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed in W.P.No.11232 of 2015 dated 18.11.2015. For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
O R D E R
Seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11232 of 2015 dated 18.11.2015, the present review application has been filed. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner made two submissions. Firstly, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that name of the counsel for the review petitioner has been wrongly typed and therefore, no opportunity was given. His second submission is to the effect that the concerned respondent official has not understood the scope of the order passed by this Court.
3.This Court directed the learned counsel for the review petitioner to produce the cause list dated 18.11.2015. Accordingly, the learned counsel for
the review petitioner has produced the same. A perusal of the cause list would clearly indicates that the name of the counsel is as same as the name of the counsel typed in the order passed. Thus, both in the cause list as well as the order passed by this Court, the name of the counsel for the review petitioner is very much noted.
4.Now, let us look into the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11232 of 2015. This Court did not passed any positive order. It is beneficial to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the order passed by this Court, which is as follows:
"4.Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent Nos.1 and 2 for appropriate action against respondent No.5. As and when such a complaint is made by the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as the case may be shall take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.3 to 5.
5.Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
5.Thus, only an opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to approach
the respondents 1 and 2 therein for appropriate action against 5th respondent therein. In pursuant to such a complaint, if any, the respondents 1 and 2 was given liberty to take appropriate action after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned including the respondents 3 to 5. 6.Thus, even on merits, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed. Yet another reason was sought to be made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, that is to the effect that the dispute has been resolved between the writ petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5. If such is the case, the petitioner can bring before the second respondent herein. In any case that cannot be a ground for review the order passed by this Court. 7.
In the result, the review application stands closed giving liberty to the petitioner to work out the remedy in the manner known to law including approaching the 2nd respondent by bringing into his notice about the compromise entered into between the parties. The petitioner is given a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to do the needful.
26.08.2016 Index : Yes / No cse Note: Issue order copy on 30.08.2016
To 1.The Joint Director, Directorate of Matriculation Schools, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2.The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Dr.Ambedkar Govt. Hr.
Secondary School Campus, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
3.Sri Raghavendra Educational Society, Rep. by its Secretary Mrs.Latha Rajinikanth No.99-A Velachery Road, Velachery, Chennai - 600 042.
4.Sri Rajinikanth Founder Trustee, Sri Raghavendra Educational Society, No.29-B Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024.
M.M. SUNDRESH.J cse Rev.Aplw.No.50 of 2016 in W.P.No.11232 of 2015 26.08.2016