Sriramar M v. The Registrar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :20.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU REV.APLW(MD)No.231 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.20334 of 2025 M.Sriramar .. Petitioner/Petitioner Vs.
1. The Registrar Office of the State Registrar of Coop Societies 110, E.V.R.High Road Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010
2. Regional Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies Virudhunagar Region Office of the District Collector Campus Virudhunagar Virudhunagar District.
3. P.Senthilkumar
4. Co-operative Sub Registrar Virudhunagar Rural Office of the District Collector Campus Virudhunagar.
5. Nagarajan .. Respondents/Respondents PRAYER:Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 114 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed in W.P.No.20334 of 2025, dated 09.09.2025.
1/4
For Petitioner :Mr.M.Ezhilarasu For Respondents :Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This review application is filed for review of the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.20334 of 2025 dated 09.09.2025.
2. The present Review Application had been filed claiming that the petitioner/applicant is not a stranger and he is also an employee of the first respondent. The petitioner/applicant had made a complaint against the third and fifth respondents by substantiated facts for taking disciplinary proceedings. As no disciplinary proceedings was instituted pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in considering the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner/applicant had challenged the same before this Court wherein this Court holding that the petitioner/applicant is a stranger and not connected with any service disputes, he is not entitled for the relief. He would reiterate that the petitioner/applicant is not a stranger and therefore, he seeks this Court to review the order passed by this Court dated 09.09.2025 in W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025.
2/4
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
4. Even if the petitioner is an employee who had made a complaint against the third and fifth respondents, it is to be seen that it is prerogative of the employer to take action on the alleged complaint made by the petitioner/applicant. This Court had applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjith Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 3469, in dismissing the Writ Petition.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any material error in the order made in W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025 dated 09.09.2025, to entertain the present review application. Accordingly, this Review application is dismissed. No costs.
20.11.2025 gvn Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No 3/4
K.KUMARESH BABU, J gvn REV.APLW(MD)No.231 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.20334 of 2025 20.11.2025 4/4