Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Madras High Court

S.P.D.Karuppiah vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2015

Bench: R.Sudhakar, V.M.Velumani

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 06.10.2015  

CORAM   
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR            
and 
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI            

Writ Petition (MD) No.11330 of 2011

S.P.D.Karuppiah                                         ...     Petitioner       

                                                Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
   Rep. By the Home Secretary, 
   Secretariat,
   Fort St. George,
   Chennai.

2.The Commissioner,  
   Milk Production and Dairy Development,
   Madhavaram, Chennai ? 51. 

3.The District Collector,
   Sivagangai District,
   Sivagangai.

4.The Superintendent of Police,
   CBCID, B.B.Kulam, Narimedu,  
   Madurai District.

5.The Inspector of Police,
   CBCID, Sivagangai District,
   Visalakshipuram 3rd Street,
   Tabal Thanthi Nagar,
   Madurai ? 14.                                                ...      Respondents 

         Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to
consider the enquiry report of the third respondent, dated 23.11.2009 and
also to direct to transfer the case to the fourth respondent after
registration of F.I.R.

!For Petitioner             : Mr.T.Lajapathiroy

For Respondents              : Mr.N.Manoharan
                               Special Government Pleader

:ORDER  

(Order of the Court was made by V.M.VELUMANI, J.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the enquiry report of the third respondent, dated 23.11.2009 and also for a further direction to transfer the case to the fourth respondent, after registration of F.I.R.

2. According to the petitioner, one Kathiresan, who was working as a Manager of Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Karaikudi, gave a complaint to the respondents 2 and 3 alleging irregularity in the affairs of Sivagangai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, at Karaikudi. Subsequently, he filed W.P.(MD)No.3150 of 2009 before this Court seeking a direction to consider his complaints.

3. This Court, by order dated 10.09.2009, directed the third respondent to conduct an enquiry on the complaints given by Kathiresan. As per the order passed by this Court, the third respondent, the District Collector and Special Officer of Sivagangai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Sivagangai District, conducted an enquiry and sent a report on 23.11.2009 to the second respondent.

4. The second respondent did not take any action based on the report. Therefore, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.

5. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has filed the writ petition only due to his personal interest and no public interest involved. As per the order passed by this Court, dated 10.09.2009, the third respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted his report, dated 23.11.2009. Based on the said report, show cause notices have been issued and various litigations are pending. The third respondent in the report, dated 23.11.2009, did not make any suggestion for initiating criminal action. Therefore, the respondents 1, 4 and 5 cannot initiate criminal proceedings based on the report and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

7. It is admitted by both the petitioner and the respondents that as per the order passed by this Court, dated 10.09.2009, the third respondent has conducted an enquiry and sent a report dated 23.11.2009, to the second respondent. The second respondent has taken action against one R.Lalitha and legal proceedings are pending. The report is of the year 2009 and the writ petition is of the year 2011. The petitioner has not impleaded the person against whom the said Kathiresan gave complaints. Therefore, this Court cannot grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. In the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to approach the second respondent, for suitable action based on the complaints given by Kathiresan and the report of the third respondent, dated 23.11.2009.

8. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

To

1.The Home Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The Commissioner, Milk Production and Dairy Development, Madhavaram, Chennai ? 51.

3.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

4.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, B.B.Kulam, Narimedu, Madurai District.

5.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Sivagangai District, Visalakshipuram 3rd Street, Tabal Thanthi Nagar, Madurai ? 14..