K.P.S.Muniswaran v. K.P.S.Selvaraj
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.08.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.(MD) No.16278 of 2017 K.P.S.Muniswaran ... Petitioner vs.
1.K.P.S.Selvaraj 2.Indra Vijayalakshmi 3.Murali Retd DGM, Union Bank of India Served as Regional Head 72, P.T.Rajan Road, Narimedu Madurai-2 4.K.Palanivelusamy DGM, Union Bank of India Served as Chief Manager Madurai Main Branch Town Hall Road Madurai-625 001 5.A.Krishnaswamy Served as Chief Manager Union Bank of India Madurai Main Branch Town Hall Road Madurai-625 001 6.Prasanna Kumar Chief Manager Union Bank of India Madurai Main Branch Town Hall Road Madurai-625 001 7.The Chief Managar Union Bank of India Madurai Main Branch Town Hall Road Madurai-625 001 8.The Regional Head Union Bank of India P.T.Rajan Road Narimedu, Madurai-2
9.The General Manager South Zone Union Bank of India 139, Prakasam Road Amman Koil South George Town Chennai-600 001 10.The Chairman cum Managing Director Union Bank of India Central Office, Nariman Point Mumbai 11.The Chief Manager Axis Bank Branch 4, Good Shed Street Madurai-625 001 12.The Reserve Bank of India Central Office Buildings Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg Fort, Mumbai-400 001 ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the 12th respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2016 with Union Bank, Chennai Zonal Office, regarding illegalities committed by the 3 to 6 respondents colluding with 1st and 2nd respondents.
For Petitioner :
Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan For Respondents :
Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian for R1 & R2 Mr.V.S.Karthi for M/s.V.S.Karthi Associates for R7 & R8 Mr.Senthil Kumar for R11 No appearance for R3 to R6, R9, R10 & R12
O R D E R
It appears from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that there are plethora of disputes between the petitioner and the private respondents. It also appears that there is also a dispute among the Directors of the Company for which a litigation is pending before the Company Law Board and there are also proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In such circumstances, it is not for the petitioner to approach this Court by seeking a seemingly innocuous prayer to consider his representation by the 12th respondent herein and take action against the other respondents.
2. Such a prayer cannot be considered and countenanced in law, particularly, before this Court, which is exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the petitioner has any issues against the private respondents or any other Directors of the Company, it is open to him to approach appropriate legal Fora by ventilating his grievances. It is certainly not open to the petitioner to approach this Court to settle his personal scores as against the private respondents or any other Directors of the Company. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the writ petition is per se not maintainable, when such a prayer being sought for in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-II) +1CC TO MR.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR.No.79250. +1CC TO MR.PT.S.NARENDRAVASAN, ADVOCATE IN SR.No.78736. +1CC TO MR.M.SENTHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR.No.78664. KRK DS RSK SAR-2;03.09.2018; 3P/4C W.P.(MD) No.16278 of 2017 14.08.2018