Sankaranarayanan.A v. The Managing Director,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH S.Sankaranarayanan
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), CMDA Tower - II, IV Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Plot No.100, Anna Nagar, Madurai - 625 020.
3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Narikuravar Colony, Thondi Road, Palamalai Nagar, Soorakulam Village, Sivagangai District - 630 606.
... Respondents P RAYER:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner as Supervisor in TASMAC Shop No.7664 at Thiruppachethi, based on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.V2/836/2013, dated 20.01.2020 by considering the petitioner's representations dated 18.12.2019, 08.01.2020 and 13.02.2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam Standing Counsel
O R D E R
By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2.Since the petitioner's request to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Supervisor in TASMAC Shop No.7664 at Thiruppachethi, based on the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in 1/3
Na.Ka.No.V2/836/2013, dated 20.01.2020, was not considered, the Writ Petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, he has made a representation in this regard on 13.02.2020, which is still pending.
3. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.
4. In the light of the above observations, it would be appropriate to direct the first respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2020, within a stipulated time and thereby the ends of justice could be secured. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the concerned respondent to consider the same on its own merits.
5.Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.02.2020, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to serve a copy of the representation dated 13.02.2020 to the respondents.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) TM 2/3
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
+1 CC to Mr.D.SRINIVASARAGAVAN, Advocate ( SR5603[F] dated 17/02/2021 ) +1 CC to Mr.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-6150[F] dated 19/02/2021 ) 17.02.2021 KM (10.03.2021) 3P 3C 3/3