V.Manikandan v. The Registrar (District Judiciary)
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the transfer order was based on malice rather than administrative exigency. Holding that reasons cannot be supplemented via affidavits, the court noted the order cited administrative exigency and the petition was consigned for fresh representation.
What did the court decide?
The petition was consigned without prejudice to the petitioner's right to move a representation to the competent authority.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.01.2020
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.23888 of 2019
V.Manikandan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Registrar (District Judiciary),
High Court, Madras – 108.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3.The Registrar (General),
High Court, Madras – 108. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in R.O.C.No.88102-A/2018/C.1 dated 07.08.2019 and the 2nd respondent in A.No.268/2019 dated 07.08.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to repost the petitioner at present place in Cuddalore District and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judicial review court can accept averments in counter-affidavits to supplement the lack of reasons in the impugned administrative order?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V.Manikandan
- respondent
The Registrar (District Judiciary), High Court, Madras – 108
- respondent
The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore
- respondent
The Registrar (General), High Court, Madras – 108
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court