Menagi Arumugam v. The Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsmen

W.M.P.No.30943 of 2025 in W.P.No.27620 of 2025 W.M.P.No.30943 of 2025 in W.P.No.27620 of 2025 M.SUNDAR,J., and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., (Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR.J.,) Captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petitions' ['WMPs' for the sake of brevity] have been filed with a prayer to dispense with production of original 'impugned order in 214/maa/2023 dated 12.09.2023 passed by the first respondent [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity and convenience] and order in ZOC No.0819/4/2023 dated 31.10.2023 passed by the third respondent' [hereinafter 'impugned notice' for the sake of brevity and convenience].

2. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a party to the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the first respondent and therefore, she was not served with the original impugned order and the impugned notice dated 31.10.2023 has been misplaced by the writ petitioner. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to a portion of paragraph 13 of the support affidavit, which 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.M.P.No.30943 of 2025 in W.P.No.27620 of 2025 M.SUNDAR,J., and HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J., reads as follows:

'14. I submit that I was not added as a party in impugned order in 214/Ma/2023 dated 12.09.2023 passed by the 1 st respondent. Therefore, I was not served with the original impugned order. While so, the 3 rd respondent issued 2 nd impugned order in ZOC.No.0819/4/2023 dated 31.10.2023. However, I have not been served with the original impugned order, I was given a photostat copy of the same.....'

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and taking note of the nature of the matter, aforementioned reason is accepted.

4. In the light of the narrative thus far, dispense with prayer is acceded to. Captioned WMPs are ordered as prayed for . (M.S.,J.) (H.C.,J.) gpa 23.07.2025 (2/2) W.M.P.No.30943 of 2025 in W.P.No.27620 of 2025 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis