← Library
Madras High CourtWP/28974/2012dismissed

K.Murugan v. The Secretary To Government

2015-09-15Honourable Mr Justice M. Jaichandren2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-09-2015

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P. No.28974 of 2012 K.Murugan .. Petitioner.

Versus

1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Law, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. Srinivasan (R2 Impleaded as per order dated 15.11.2012 by NPVJ in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.28974 of 2012) .. Respondents.

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 30.12.2011 preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law.

For petitioner :

Mr.K.Anbarasan For respondents:

Mr.R.Ravichandran (R1) Mr.K.Goviganesan (R2)

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 30.12.2011, in accordance with law.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the second respondent, who is an Advocate by profession, has falsified certain documents and is trying to alienate the property of the petitioner, illegally. In such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the first respondent, dated 30.12.2011. Since the first respondent had not disposed of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

said representation, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, as the first respondent is not the proper authority to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 30.12.2011. However, they had submitted that it would be open to the petitioner to seek the remedies, if any, before the appropriate forum or authority in the manner known to law.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available this court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. The first respondent is not the proper authority to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner in his representation, dated 30.12.2011. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to seek his remedies, if any, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar csh TO The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Law, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

+1cc to Mr.K. Govi Ganesan, Advocate, S.R.No.50467 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.50512 KGK(CO) EU(09/10/2015) W.P. No.28974 of 2012 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/