Dinakaran.P.S. v. The Chief Postal Master General

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE P.S.Dinakaran ... Petitioner /Vs./ 1.The Chief Postal Master General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai - 600 002.

2.The Post Master General, Southern Region, Officer of the PMG, Madurai - 625 002.

3.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division, Madurai - 625 002.

4.The Post Master, Munichalai Post Office, Balarangapuram, Madurai District.

5.Rajan ... Respondents 1/5

P RAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st to 3rd respondents to take action against 4th and 5th respondents forthwith petitioner's complaint dated 09.04.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.Marimuthu for Mr.M.Govindarajan For Respondents : Mr.S.Jeyasingh (R1 to R4) Central Government Standing Counsel No appearance (R5)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to take action against the respondents 4 and 5 for not acting upon the change of address request intimated to the respondents. According to the petitioner, due to the same, Electrical 'C' Licence in favour of the petitioner's cousin was not delivered on time. The petitioner has filed the letter sent by his cousin to the respondents intimating the change of address in the typed set of papers filed along with this writ petition. However, the petitioner 2/5

has not filed the acknowledgment card with regard to the communication sent by the petitioner's cousin to the respondents intimating the change of address.

2. On the last hearing date, ie., on 21.08.2024, this Court directed the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to produce a copy of the letter / communication sent by the petitioner along with acknowledgment card received from the respondents with regard to the communication sent by the petitioner's cousin to the respondents intimating the change of address.

3. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to produce the same. In view of the same, it is clear that there is no dereliction of duty on the part of the official respondents and therefore, the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking to take action against the erring officials, namely, the respondents 4 and 5 cannot be granted by this Court. 3/5

4. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 12.09.2024 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No Sm 4/5

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

Sm Order made in Dated:

12.09.2024 5/5