Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13892/2017dismissed

L.Ramanujam v. The District Collector -Cum -

2017-07-27Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.07.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13892 of 2017 L.Ramanujam ... Petitioner -vs1. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

2. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Ottapidaram Panchayat Union, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District

3. Valasamudram Panchayat Rep. by its President, (now by Special Officer) Valasamudram Panchayat Ottapidaram Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 12.01.09, 29.10.09, 10.11.11 as well as to the 1st respondent dated 28.06.10, 09.07.13 and 07.01.16 made for reinstatement in service as Appeal against the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A02/03/09 dated nil within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandham for R1 Additional Government Pleader Mr.S.Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R2&R3

ORDER

Challenging the removal order passed by the third respondent dated 22.12.2008, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The records filed by the petitioner shows that till date, no proper appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the removal order dated 22.12.2008. While that being so, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner cannot come to this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider his representations dated 12.01.09, 29.10.09 and 10.11.11 or any direction against the first respondent to consider his representations, which is not in the form of appeal. Moreover, even if the prayer for issuance of a direction to consider the representation is granted, that is also not going to answer the petitioner's prayer. The reason is that he has not sought for setting aside the impugned order of removal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(writs) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

2. The Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) Ottapidaram Panchayat Union, Ottapidaram, Thoothukudi District + 1 CC TO MR.G.Thalaimutharasu, ADVOCATE IN SR No.68595 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No.68733 rr MK/SV MMS/SAR-4/05.09.2017/2P/5C W.P(MD)No.13892 of 2017 27.07.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/