Disposed

Sree Karpaga Vinayagar v. The Managing Director

Madras HC16 Dec 2021WP/11245/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash an order blacklisting the petitioner for bogus turnover. The Court directed the respondents to afford the petitioner an opportunity for reconsideration and consider a representation fee within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to provide an opportunity for reconsideration and consider representation within twelve weeks.

Sree Karpaga Vinayagar Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.12.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.11245 of 2015 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015

¶6

Sree Karpaga Vinayagar Transport Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.M.Karthick No.42, Pillayar Koil Street Pandiyan Nagar, Gudiyatham Vellore District ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Chennai 600 010

¶9

2.The Regional Manager Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Kanchipuram Kanchipuram ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.B.1/3089/12 dated 28.03.2014 and quash the same.

¶11

The order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the 2^nd respondent is sought to be quashed in the present Writ Petition.

¶12

The petitioner is Sree Karpaga Vinayagar Transport represented by its Managing Partner. The petitioner has entered into an agreement with the 2^nd respondent, Tamil Nadu Civil

¶13

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

¶14

Supplies Corporation on 06.06.2012 in order to transport civil supplies goods to various centres.

¶15

In this regard, the respondents identified certain irregularities and found that the turnover statement submitted by the petitioner firm was bogus and accordingly they have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities. In view of the said allegations, the petitioner was black listed from the list maintained by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to defend their case. The order impugned states that the turnover statement issued is found to be bogus.

¶17

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may be provided with an opportunity for the purpose of re-consideration on account of efflux of time. The petitioner company was black listed in the year 2014 and the petitioner had already suffered more than six years.

¶18

This being the factum, the petitioner is at liberty to submit their application / representation before the respondents, who intrurn is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to make a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

kan

¶25

To,

¶26

1.The Managing Director Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Chennai 600 010

¶27

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

¶28

2.The Regional Manager Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Kanchipuram Kanchipuram

¶29

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.68299

¶30

W.P.No.11245 of 2015

¶31

RGN(CO) CT 21/01/2022

¶32

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

Sree Karpaga Vinayagar v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Karpaga Vinayagar v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.R.E.Arumugam Vs the Chairman

S.Ramasamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Arvind Kumar Vs The Secretary

Best & Crompton Engineering Vs The Corporation Bank

Rajan @ Kannan Vs the Presiding Officer

M/s.Madhucon Granites Ltd, Vs The Government of Tamilnadu