M. Seetharaman, v. The Commissioner,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 18.04.2022 DELIVERED ON : 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.A(MD) Nos.307, 311 & 356 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD) Nos.3005, 3053 & 3054, 3564 & 3565 of 2022 M.Seetharaman ...Appellant/Petitioner HR&CE Department, Chennai.
3. The Fit Person / Thakkar,
4. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, ... Respondents/ Respondents to set aside the order dated 03.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2022.
1/6
: Mr.G.Rajaraman : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, for R1, R4 & R5 Standing Counsel for R2 & R3 W.A(MD) No.311 of 2022 Sri Subramanya Swamy Thirukovil Swathanthira Paribalana Sthalathar Sabha Represented by its President, D.Kumar Ayyar, ...Appellant Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Fit Person / Thakkar,
4. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi.
...Respondents/Respondents
6. M.Seetharaman
...Respondent/Petitioner
to set aside the order dated 03.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2022.
2/6
: Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan for Mr.G.Chandrasekhar : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, for R1, R4 & R5 Standing Counsel for R2 & R3 Mr.G.Rajaraman for R6 W.A(MD) No.356 of 2022 Thiruchendur Shri Jeyanthi Nathar Thirisuthanthirars Kaariyasthar Sthaanigar Sabha (Sl.No.39/2018), Through its Secretary, A.Narayanan.
... Appellant/3rd Party 1.M.Seetharaman ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. The Commissioner, Chennai - 600 034.
3. The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
4. The Fit Person / Thakkar, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District.
5. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin.
7. The Commissioner, Tiruchendur Municipality, Tiruchendur, ... Respondents 2to 7/Respondents 3/6
to set aside the order dated 23.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.1700 of 2022 .
: Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram : Mr.G.Rajaraman for R1 Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, for R2, R5 & R6 Standing Counsel for R3 & R4 COMMON JUDGMENT PARESH UPADHYAY , J., 1.
Challenge in these appeals is made to the orders dated 03.03.2022, 23.03.2022 and 30.03.2022 recorded on W.P.(MD) No. 1700 of 2022.
2.
The implementation of the impugned orders was stayed by this Court firstly vide order dated 31.03.2022 and subsequently clarified vide order dated 01.04.2022.
3.
Learned advocates for the appellants have vehemently submitted that, the relief sought by the petitioner was quashment of suspension order. It is submitted that, the said order was already stayed initially. It is further submitted that, the said stay order is not even vacated by learned Single Judge but independently those directions are given which are not only beyond the scope of the writ petition, those directions are in the nature of public interest, 4/6
which as per Roster could not have been taken up by any learned Single Judge. Grievance is also made that, the parties who may have status of necessary party are also not heard and therefore the impugned orders are unsustainable on that ground as well. It is submitted that these appeals be allowed by setting aside the impugned orders.
4.
On the other hand, learned Advocate General on behalf of the State has submitted that, the learned Single Judge has not given any new direction because such directions were already given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 11817 of 2018 and the impugned orders are only reiteration thereof. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed.
5.
Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:- 5.1 The subject matter of the writ petition is the service matter. As per Roster it was listed before learned Single Judge. The directions contained in the impugned orders are in the nature of public interest. The impugned orders are unsustainable on more than one grounds. Firstly, it was beyond the scope of the writ petition and further that, even if it was thought necessary, as per Roster the matter was required to be considered by the Division Bench. Going by any scale the impugned orders are unsustainable and therefore the same need to be quashed and set aside. 5.
2 So far the argument on behalf of the State to the effect that, the learned Single Judge has not given any new direction because such directions were already given by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 11817 of 2018 and the impugned orders are only reiteration thereof, is concerned we note that, even if it was so, it was the subject matter of the Division Bench and therefore the same could not have been done by learned Single Judge. We also note that, even the sustainability of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court recorded in W.P.(MD) No. 11817 of 2018 is questioned by us and the matter is being referred to the larger Bench for the reasons recorded in a separate order passed today. Beyond this, no further reason needs to be recorded so far these appeals are concerned.
6.
For the above reasons we set aside the impugned orders in these appeals. So far the merits of the writ petition is concerned, the matter is being remitted back to learned Single Judge, by a separate order (today), for adjudicating the dispute raised in the writ petition on its own merits. 5/6
7.
These appeals are allowed in above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions would not survive. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) ssm To Chennai.
3. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi, 5.The Commissioner, Tiruchendur Municipality, +1 CC to M/s.G. RAJARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-21966[F] dated 28/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.M.MUTHUGEETHAYAN, Advocate ( SR-22303[F] dated 28/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-23266,23267[F] dated 02/05/2022 ) W.A(MD) Nos.307, 311 & 356 of 2022 28.04.2022 RK(19/05/2022) 6P 9C 6/6