G.Veludas v. The Managing Director,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.06.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and W.M.P.(MD).No.10132 of 2024 G.Veludass ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Ltd., Kattabomman Nagar, Tirunelveli.

2. The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Tirunelveli Ltd., Nagercoil Region, Rannithottam, Kanyakumari District.

... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in No. 498/ A1/ TNSTC/ (TNV)/ NGL/ 2009 dated 27.04.2024 and quash the same as illegal. 1/5

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivasudhan For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramiah, Standing Counsel

ORDER

Heard Mr.S.Sivasudhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in No. 498/ A1/ TNSTC/ (TNV)/ NGL/ 2009 dated 27.04.2024.

3. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager in the second respondent Transport Corporation. The second respondent has passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 deputing the petitioner to Legal Section of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Limited, Tirunelveli Region for three months training with immediate effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. Mr.S.Sivasudhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working in the Transport Corporation for the past 33 years and the date of retirement of his service is on 31.05.2026. He would 2/5

further submit that the petitioner has to take care of his family and hence, he could not attended the training.

5. However, Mr.K.Ramaiah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner till now has not submitted any representation before the concerned authority and straight away filed this Writ Petition to challenge the impugned order, which is not maintainable.

6. However, without any difficulty, the petitioner can give a fresh representation to the respondents through RPAD within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the same has to be disposed of by the respondents.

7. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the respondents through RPAD within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner and it is open to the respondents to consider the same on its own merits. 3/5

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.06.2024 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Ncc : yes/no TSG 4/5

R.N.MANJULA, J.

TSG 03.06.2024 5/5