Dismissed

G.Selvaraj v. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Nov 2016WP/14353/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus for an enquiry, the High Court held the petition to be an abuse of process of law arising from a personal dispute. Finding the petitioner's allegations baseless and the petitioner lacked clean hands, the Court dismissed the petition and awarded costs to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 payable by the petitioner to the second respondent within two weeks.

G.Selvaraj Vs The Bar Council of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 18.11.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.14353 of 2015

¶6

G.Selvaraj ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Bar Council of TamilNadu,
Madras High Court Campus,
Chennai.
2. S.Cheguevara
3. The Public Information Officer/
Joint Director (Higher Secondary)
Directorate of Government Examination,
D.P.I. Compound,
College Road, Chennai-6.
(R-3 impleaded as per order
dated 5.8.2015
by VRSJ and KRCBJ in M.P.1/2015
in W.P.No.14353/2015 ) ...Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to conduct enquiry and pass order for the complaint filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 29.01.2015 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Subbiah For Respondents : Mr.S.Y.Masood for R1 Mr.K.Elango for r2 Mr.S.Gunasekaran,AGP for R3

¶9

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.) There appears a personal dispute between the petitioner and

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

the second respondent. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition filed is a clear abuse of process of law. The communication sent by the Joint Director of Government Examination, Chennai in R.C.No.032673/H7/2015 dated 31.08.2015 clinches the issue. The said communication clearly states that the allegations of the petitioner with respect to the certificate pertaining to the second respondent are totally baseless and misleading with a sole object to maligning his reputation.

¶12

Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition as the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to consider the prayer as sought for. We dismiss the writ petition with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Bar Council of TamilNadu,
Madras High Court Campus,
Chennai.
2. The Public Information Officer/
Joint Director (Higher Secondary)
Directorate of Government Examination,
D.P.I. Compound,
College Road, Chennai-6.
+1cc to Mr.S.Y. Masood, Advocate, S.R.No.67268
+1cc to Mr.K. Elango, Advocate, S.R.No.66946
+1cc to Mr. S. Subbiah, Advocate Sr.No.67326
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.67303
ksj(CO)
md(01/12/2016)

¶14

W.P.No.14353 of 2015

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Selvaraj v. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Selvaraj v. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Abdul Salam Vs the Presiding Officer

C.M.Arumugam Vs The Chairman

S.Senthamil Selvan, Vs The Registrar General

Mrs.Kalaiselvi Vs The Secretary

B.Ramkumar Athithan Vs The Secretary

Mr.J.Meganathan Vs the Secretary