P.Palanisamy v. The Commr Of Sugars.,

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 29.06.2017 Coram :

The Honourable Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. No.375 of 2002 P.Palanisamy

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The Commissioner of Sugars, E.V.R. Periyar Building,

2. The Assistant Director of Sugars, E.V.R. Building,

3. The Principal, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic, Mohanur, Namakkal District Chennai - 6.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in the minutes dated 13.12.2000 and to quash the same as illegal and consequent to issue a directions not to oust the petitioner from service. For Petitioner :

Ms. D.Kalaiselvi.

For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 :

M/s. T.Girija, Government Advocate.

For Respondent No.3 :

Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram

ORDER

The writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the minutes issued by the Dharmapuri and Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic Committee meeting held on 13.12.2000.

2. The minutes, challenged in this writ petition, reads that "The Committee met today to discuss the modalities to be adopted to bring down the expenditure in running the Polytechnics with in the expected income of Polytechnic. The existing staff strength was discussed with the Principals, departments wise, with reference to the need. After detailed discussions with the Principals of the Polytechnic the Committee suggested to adopt the staffing pattern. The details of existing staff strength and the revised pattern is enclosed as annexure. The cost analysis to arrive at the quantum of financial commitment by implementing the revised staffing pattern has been sought for from both the Co-operative Sugar Mills. It was suggested to workout the commitment and present the same during the next meeting to be held on 21.12.2000 for taking decision."

3. On reading of the above minutes, it is clear that no decision was taken in the meeting held on 13.12.2000 and it was only decided to consider the re-arrangement of the staff pattern in the Sugar Mills Polytechnic.

4. When there is no decision taken or any order has been passed affecting the service condition of writ petitioner, there is no cause for filing of this writ petition and consequently, the writ petition is to be treated as premature and the writ petitioner is not an aggrieved person in strict sense. Such being the factum of this case, the writ petition is premature and devoid of merits. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sli/jer To

1. The Commissioner of Sugars, E.V.R. Periyar Building,

2. The Assistant Director of Sugars, E.V.R. Building,

3. The Principal, Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic, Mohanur, Namakkal District Chennai - 6.

+1 cc to Mr.S.Sivashanmugam Advocate sr 45870 W.P. No.375 of 2002 sj(co) aa12/07/2017