Petitioner challenged a letter issued by Respondent-1 citing a third-party consumer complaint. Counsel admitted the underlying complaint was settled amicably. Court held the letter unjustified and quashed it.
Impugned letter dated 08.01.2018 set aside; Writ Petition allowed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2018 and
W.M.P.(MD)No.2678 of 2018
C.Murugan
...Petitioner
/Vs./
1.The Assistant Manager (Law),
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Kumbakonam) Ltd.,
Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.
2.The Branch Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Ramanad (Mof), Ramanathapuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, call for the records pertaining to the Proceedings in Ref. TNSTC/Karai/L/861, dated 08.01.2018 issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.S.Haroon Rasheed For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaraman Standing Counsel
ORDER
Having heard the parties, following order was passed on 15.12.2021:
“ The Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. He has instructions to state that consumer complaint bearing No.5 of 2017 has been filed as against the petitioner by a third party that forms the basis of issuance of impugned letter dated 08.01.2018. Thereafter, the issue has been settled amicably between the petitioner and that third party.
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2018
2. In such a circumstance, there is no justification for the impugned letter to remain in force and the same ought to have been withdrawn. Let the needful be done before the next hearing.
2.Today, Mr.D.Sivaraman, learned counsel circulates
instructions dated 06.01.2022 from R1 stating as follows:
“ jkpH;ehL muR nghf;Ftuj;Jf ; fHfk; (Fk;gnfhzk;) ypkpbll;> Fk;gnfhzk; jkpH;ehL muR nghf;Ftuj;Jf ; fHfk; (Fk;gnfhzk;) ypl;.>
fhiuf;Fo kz;lyk;> rl;lg;gphpt[
ghh;it : : jmnghf(Fk;g)/fhiu/rpwg;g [/22 jpU.o.rptuhkd; mth;fs; tHf;fwpQh;> kJiu.
06.01.2022
mg;gh>
bghUs; : W.P .2478/2018 khz;g [kpF cah;ePjpkd;wk ; - tpguk; rkh;g ;gpj ;jy ; - bjhlh;ghf.
nkw;fz ;l tHf;F bjhlh;ghf C.C .5/2017 , ,uhkehjg[uk ; tHf;F Kotile;Jtpl;lgoahy; kDjhuh; kPJ vt;tpj eltof;ifa[k ; eph;thfj;jug;gpy; vLf;fg ;glhJ vd;gij bjhptpj;Jf ;bfhs;fpnwhk;.
ed;wp>
3.In light of the instructions as extracted above, the impugned letter is set aside and this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD-II)
// True Copy //
sm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
+1 CC to M/s.D.SIVARAMAN, Advocate ( SR-545[F] dated 06/01/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.2478 of 2018 Dated:06.01.2022
SP(CO)
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ GC(31.01.2022) 2P 2C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned letter retracing a third-party complaint became unjustified upon the amicable settlement of the underlying matter
Whether the issuing authority was directed to withdraw the invalid letter
C.Murugan
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
