Allowed

G.Sundar, v. the Senior Post Master

Madras HC19 Oct 2022WP/16154/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226, quashing an order that canceled the petitioner's small savings agent license. The court held the order was passed without application of mind as it relied on a personal dispute rather than material regarding alleged diversion of funds, noting the license had been recently renewed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order canceling the small savings agent license is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed.

G.Sundar, Vs the Senior Post Master — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.16154 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.16154 of 2010 &

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

G.Sundar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Senior Post Master Vellore Head Post Office Vellore-632 001

¶12

2.The Assistant Director of Small Savings and Ex-office Personal Assistant (Small Savings and Raffles) to the Collections Vellore District Vellore-632 009

¶13

The Collector Vellore District

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶16

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.PD1/713/2010 dated 13.07.2010 and quash

¶17

the same as illegal arbitrary and direct the 3^rd respondent to permit the

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

W.P.No.16154 of 2010

¶21

petitioner to carry on the agency granted to him vide C.A.No.526/2010-2011

¶22

dated 15.02.2010.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thiruvengadam

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.J.Madhanagopal Rao, SPC for R1 and 2 Mr.P.Gurunathan, AGP for R3

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order canceling

¶27

the small savings agent license.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as the agent

¶29

under the small saving scheme in Vellore District and the same was renewed vide C.A.No.526/2010-2011 dated 15.02.2010. The appointments are continuously renewed from the year 2006-07. Now the respondent issued the impugned order on the basis of the complaint given by one MIS Counter Postal Assistant. Whereas, the impugned is passed on the different reasons without any materials. Therefore, seeks to quash the impugned order.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶31

_________ Page 2 of 6_

¶32

W.P.No.16154 of 2010

¶33

In the counter the 1^st respondent has stated that FIR has been lodged against him in Vellore Police Station by one K.Sathish Kumar son of Krishnamoorthy for shouting in a public place using filthy words the petitioner has created chaos and confusion among the existing agents and thereby created a panic among the public and staff. The senior superintendent of Post Office has written a letter to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent has passed an order on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office and it is also the contention that petitioner is misguiding people by saying that if they invest in a private finance will give 2% commission and thereby creating loss to the both Central and State Governments. Accordingly, disputed the entire averments and prays for dismissal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that what was the complaint sent by the Post Master is only with regard to some personal altercation between the writ petitioner and one employee. Whereas the impugned order shows as if the petitioner has diverted the funds deposited in LIC policies. Such order based on mere surmises without any materials or recommendation by the Post Master. Now it is stated that the license has

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶36

_________ Page 3 of 6_

¶37

W.P.No.16154 of 2010

¶38

been renewed till recently.

¶39

However, the impugned order has to be set aside due to non application of mind. Though it is stated that impugned is based on the FIR, the other aspect nothing reflected in the impugned order. The impugned order date 13.07.2010 is passed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has invested the amount collected in various other policies thereby his license is revoked. But the reference in the impugned order indicate that such order has been made on the recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent. On perusal of the records, the recommendation has been sent only with regard to certain personal dispute between the petitioner and one of the employee and there is no reference as to the pending of any criminal case. The criminal case is also appears to be closed in favour of the petitioner.

¶40

Therefore, without any materials passing any impugned order on

¶41

the ground that the petitioner diverted the funds to some other investment cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also submitted by both sides the license also renewed till date.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶43

_________ Page 4 of 6_

¶44

W.P.No.16154 of 2010

¶45

In such view of the matter impugned order is set aside. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶46

19.10.2022

¶47

kpr Internet:Yes Speaking/Non speaking order To

¶48

1.The Senior Post Master Vellore Head Post Office Vellore-632 001 2.The Assistant Director of Small Savings and Ex-office Personal Assistant (Small Savings and Raffles) to the Collections Vellore District Vellore-632 009 3. The Collector Vellore District

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶50

_________ Page 5 of 6_

¶51

W.P.No.16154 of 2010

¶52

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶53

kpr

¶54

W.P.No.16154 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶55

19.10.2022

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________

¶57

_________ Page 6 of 6_

G.Sundar, v. the Senior Post Master

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sundar, v. the Senior Post Master

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

Mrs.M.Premavathi, Vs The Inspector General of

M/S. Sree Rengaraaj Steel Vs the Superintending Engineer

Kaliammal, Vs The Chairman

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries Vs The Chairman and Managing

G.Chinnathambi, Vs the Deputy Registrar of Coop.

G.Sundar Vs The Personal Assistant to the