Madras High Court
Dr.Saranya Periyasamy vs M/S. Qatar Airways on 7 March, 2018
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
Writ Petition SR No.5278 of 2018
Dr.Saranya Periyasamy .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s. Qatar Airways,
648-690 Seethakathi Business Centre,
Office Number 3C, 10th floor,
Anna Salai,
Chnnai 600 006.
2. M/s. Consulate of Germany,
9, Boat Club Road,
R.A.Puram,
Nandanam,
Chennai 600 028.
3. M/s. Embassy of the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
6/50-F Shantipath,
Chankyapuri,
New Delhi 110 021.
4. M/s. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd.,
No.90, Basement Floor,
Ganesh Towers,
Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004. ...Respondents
Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring of the act of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in preventing this petitioner's travel on 01.12.2017 is illegal consequently direct the respondents to pay the cost of travel and compensation of Rs.11,09,597/- as per this petitioner's legal notice dated 09.12.2017 and cost of this petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Arunagiri
O R D E R
The petitioner seeks for the following relief:
To issue a writ of declaration, declaring the act of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents in preventing the petitioner's travel on 01.12.2017 as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the cost of travel and compensation of Rs.11,09,597/- as per the petitioner's legal notice dated 09.12.2017.
2. The Registry has raised a doubt with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and accordingly, the matter is listed before this Court under the caption 'for maintainability'.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner was having valid visa issued by the concerned Embassy, she was prevented from travelling abroad on the particular date and therefore, such act of the respondents 1 to 3 are to be declared as illegal and consequently, payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.11,09,597/- is to be paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the act of the respondents 1 to 3 in preventing the petitioner from travelling abroad is illegal and without any basis, that too, on certain flimsy reason that there is some discrepancy in the travel document with regard to the travelling date.
5. I do not think that all these contentions can be raised by the petitioner in a writ petition, that too, against these respondents 1 to 3. Needless to say that these disputed questions of fact cannot be raised before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, in my considered view, it is a matter where the petitioner has to only approach the competent Civil Court since she is also claiming compensation. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the S.R. stage itself without expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, however, by granting liberty to agitate the matter before the competent Civil Court. No costs. 07.03.2018 Speaking/Non Speaking Index :Yes/No vsi K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
Vsi To
1. M/s. Qatar Airways, 648-690 Seethakathi Business Centre, Office Number 3C, 10th floor, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006.
2. M/s. Consulate of Germany, 9, Boat Club Road, R.A.Puram, Nandanam, Chennai 600 028.
3. M/s. Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 6/50-F Shantipath, Chankyapuri, New Delhi 110 021.
4. M/s. Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd., No.90, Basement Floor, Ganesh Towers, Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
W.P.SR.No.5278 of 201807.03.2018