Madras High Court
P.K.Sriram vs The Sourashtra Higher Secondary School on 26 August, 2011
Author: Vinod K. Sharma
Bench: Vinod K. Sharma
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 26/08/2011
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Writ Petition(MD) No.3841 of 2006
P.K.Sriram,
S/o. P.K.Krishnan,
38, Venkatapathy Iyengar Street,
Kamarajar Road, Madurai - 9. ...... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Sourashtra Higher Secondary School,
by its Correspondent and Secretary,
110, Kamarajar Road, Madurai - 9.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Tallakulam, Madurai - 2.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Tallakulam, Madurai - 2.
4. The Director of School Education,
Chennai. ...... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the impugned order of dismissal from service dated 06.12.2005 of the
first respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in service together with all attended benefits arising thereon
and backwages.
!For Petitioner ... Mr. Veera Kathiravan
^For Respondents... Mr. M. Vallinayagam for R-1
Ms. S. Bharathi for R-2
Government Advocate
- - - - - - - -
:ORDER
This case was partly heard on 26th JULY 2011. The case was adjourned, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to seek instructions for availing the statutory remedy of Appeal.
2. On the next date of hearing, the case was adjourned to 04.08.2011. On 04.08.2011, the case was again adjourned to 09.08.2011.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the adjourned date of hearing, wanted to place on record Additional Affidavit, and Additional Typed Set of Papers, without amending the writ petition.
4. The request was declined, and the case was adjourned to 22nd AUGUST 2011, as the petitioner wanted to file an Appeal, against the order.
5. On 22.08.2011, again adjournment was sought, on the ground, that Writ Appeal was filed, which was yet to be numbered.
6. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated, that the Writ Appeal was admitted, but no prayer for stay was made. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked, to argue the matter.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of arguing the case, prayed for adjournment.
8. The prayer was declined, as this case was partly heard, and had been adjourned on number of occasions. In spite of refusal to adjournment, the learned counsel for the petitioner refused, to assist the Court on merits.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SMT. POONAM ..VS.. SUMIT TANWAR (A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 1384) has been pleased to lay down as under:-
14. In T.C. Mathai and Another ..Vs.. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1385 = 1999 A.I.R. SCW 1062), this Court observed:
"The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a ..... court is to administer .....justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned. ? In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the court gets proper assistance from both sides. .... Efficacious discharge of judicial process very often depends upon the valuable services rendered by the legal profession."
16. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that, in case the counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the court may decline to entertain the petition.
17. There is another aspect of the matter. In case the petitioner's counsel is not able to raise a factual or legal issue, though such a point may have a good merit, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not "have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted" in this behalf. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide New Delhi Municipal Committee ..Vs.. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1997 SC 2847 = 1997 A.I.R. SCW 2851)). "
10. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has refused to render assistance, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Dpn/-
To
1. The District Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai - 2.
2. The Chief Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai - 2.
3. The Director of School Education, Chennai.