Dismissed

P.Krishnamoorthy v. The Principal Secretary

Madras HC9 Sept 2016WP/17166/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ direction to consider a representation claiming fraud in property allotment. Court dismissed petition, relying on a case holding that judicial intervention is inappropriate when the matter has already been adjudicated and dismissed in civil court.

What did the court decide?

No direction was given to the respondent to consider the representation; the Writ Petition was dismissed.

P.Krishnamoorthy Vs The Principal Secretary — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 09.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P. No.17166 of 2016 & WMP.No.14600 of 2016

¶6

P.Krishnamoorthy .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Principal Secretary, Home & Finance Department St. Fort George, Chennai. 2. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Borad, Chennai. 3. The Executive Engineer, Erode Housing Board, Surampattinaal Road, Erode – 638 009.

¶7

Mathialagan .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2^nd respondent herein to consider the representation dated 28.10.2015.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balamurugane

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.A.Kumar

¶11

Spl. Government Pleader- R1 to R3

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2015.

¶14

When the matter is taken up today, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit to cancel the allotment of the fourth respondent and that suit has been dismissed and that fact has not been disclosed in this Writ Petition.

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to direct the respondent to consider his representation as if allotment has been fraudulently made to the 4^th respondent. As the matter has already been settled in a civil court, the present Writ Petition filed seeking to consider the representation of the petitioner does not arise in view of the Order passed by this Court in (M. Ingaci vs. The Commissioner, Devakottai Municipality, Sivagangai District) 2010 2 Law Weekly 785, in which it has held that

¶17

There are also several instances where unscrupulous petitioners with the connivance of 'pliable' authorities have misused the direction 'to consider' issued by Court. We may illustrate by an example. A claim, which is stale, timebarred or untenable, is put forth in the form of a representation. On the ground that the authority has not disposed of the representation within a reasonable time, the person making the representation approaches the High Court with an innocuous prayer to direct the authority to 'consider' and dispose of the representation. When the court disposes of the petition with a direction to 'consider', the authority grants the relief, taking shelter under the order of the court directing him to 'consider' the grant of relief. Instances are also not wanting where authorities unfamiliar with the process and practice relating to writ proceedings and the nuances of judicial review, have interpreted or understood the order 'to consider' as directing rant of relief sought in the representation and consequently granting reliefs which otherwise could not have been granted. Thus, action of the authorities granting undeserving relief, in pursuance of orders to 'consider' may be on account of ignorance, or on account of bona fide belief that they should grant relief in view of the court's direction 'to consider' the claim, or on account of collusion/connivance between the person making the representation and the authority deciding it. Representations of dailywagers seeking regularisation/absorption in to regular service is a species of cases, where there has been large-scale misuse of the orders 'to consider'.

¶18

In this case, with regard to the allotment of the property in question to the 4^th respondent, a civil suit has also been filed to cancel the allotment in favour of the 4^th respondent and the

¶19

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

¶20

suit has also been dismissed. Hence, this Court cannot give any direction to the respondent and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶22

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Home & Finance Department
St. Fort George, Chennai.
2. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Borad,
Chennai.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Erode Housing Board,
Surampattinaal Road,
Erode – 638 009.
+1cc to Mr.V.Balamurugane, Advocate Sr.51432
+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.51661
W.P. No.17166 of 2016
cp[co]
srg 21/10/2016

¶23

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

P.Krishnamoorthy v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Krishnamoorthy v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Saravanakumar Vs The Assistant General Manager

S.Malar, Vs The Commissioner

Kresh Thyagaraj, Vs The Passport Officer

Mrs.K.Sivagami, Vs The District Collector

M.Anitha, Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation

Psa Mettur Fish Seeds Sales Vs The Commissioner