This order holds that a communication by the Assistant Director to a Co-operative Society Managing Director regarding a complaint is not challengeable by writ. The petitioner is directed to approach the respondent authority directly with a representation.
The petitioner is at liberty to give a representation to the respondent no.1.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
W.P.No.11393 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
K.M.Samiyappan
...Petitioner
-Vs-
2.Vasudevan
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.167/2015/F dated 29.01.2015 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : No appearance O R D E R
On the representation/complaint said to have been made by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.1 called for a report on the appropriate action taken. Challenging the said communication sent by the respondent no.1 to the Managing Director of Co-operative Society, the petitioner, who is said to be a member of the Society has come forward to file this Writ
2
Petition.
2.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the information as sought for in the written representation by the respondent no.2 cannot be given in the eye of law, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in law and facts. A mere letter sent by the respondent no.1 to the Managing Director of the Co-operative Society to take appropriate action on the written representation/complaint given by the respondent no.2 and send a report to the said 1st respondent cannot be a ground to challenge the impugned order. However, taking note of the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to give a representation to the respondent no.1, who would take appropriate action on the written representation/complaint made by the respondent no.2 on due consideration of the same.
3.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No va
14.08.2015
3
To
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
4
va
W.P.No.11393 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
14.08.2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a letter by the Assistant Director to a Co-operative Society Manager to take action on a complaint is challengeable via writ.
Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable in law when the alleged misbehaviour is only a communication to another authority for report.
K.M.Samiyappan
The Assistant Director of Handloom & Textiles
Vasudevan
M.M.Sundresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
