Mr.T.Vijayakumar v. The Board Of Directors,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.10.2017 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.(MD)No.19792 of 2017 Mr.T.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Board of Directors, Pandyan Grama Bank, Administrative Office, P.B.No.6, 71, Kandapuram Street, Virudhunagar-626 001.

2.The Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank, Administrative Office, P.B.No.6, 71, Kandapuram Street, Virudhunagar-626 001.

3.A.S.Murugan ...

Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent herein and consequently quash the reply letter No.AIVD/993/2014-15 dated 23.01.2015 and reply letter No.AIVD/1134/2014-15 dated March 11,2015, direct the second respondent to furnish all the documents in which the respondent bank relied to frame charge sheet against the petitioner and suspended dated 05.09.1995 and dismiss the petitioner from service as per the final order dated 01.07.1997, the respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohanaraj For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar

O R D E R

Heard Mr.M.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2.The Writ Petition challenges the appellate order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the second respondent confirming the order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the Public Information Officer of the first respondent declining disclosure of information citing Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

matter was subjudice in a Writ Petition in this Court at its Principal Seat at Chennai. Though the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy to impeach the same by way of Second Appeal before the Information Commission as provided in Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, there is no explanation, much less satisfactorily, from the petitioner for not having availed the same.

3.Be that as it may, the information sought by the petitioner is stated to be certain documents required for the purpose of effectively prosecuting the Writ Appeal bearing W.A.No.2512 of 2010 pending before the Principal Seat at Chennai of this Court. 4.It is needless to observe that petitioner is not inhibited to seek production of the required documents in that Writ Appeal by filing an appropriate application in such proceeding and hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes a request for permitting to withdraw this Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(ADII) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar +One cc to mr.M.Mohanaraj, Advocate, SR.No.84342 Myr RL/2C/2P/KK/SAR2/15/11/2017 W.P.(MD)No.19792 of 2017 30.10.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/