The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging a debt demand, declining to allow a fresh petition on the same cause of action as an earlier one was dismissed based on the petitioner's representation.
Writ Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.
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.6387 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.06.2022 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6387 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)No.5321 of 2022
A.Kesavan
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Engineer, Distribution, Madurai Metro-South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
2.Deputy Chief Internal Auditor, Board Office Audit Branch, Madurai Regional Office, K.Pudur, Madurai-7.
3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mahal Division, Madurai Metro, Madurai-625 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the third respondent dated 04.01.2022 in proceedings of reference Ka.No.U.Mi.Po / Mahal / Metro / MDU / Div.BOAB / Audit /A.No.3/22 and follow up proceedings of reference Ka.No.U.Mi.Po/ Mahal / Metro / MDU / Div.BOAB / Audit / A.No.49/22 and consequential letter dated 23.02.2022. As both are based on time barred claim dated 21.07.2011 in proceedings of reference Ka.No.U.Mi.Po/Mahal/Metro /MDU/Div.BOAB/Audit/A.No.266/11 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Chandran For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
O R D E R
The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.8280 of 2011 challenging the demand of the respondents. The said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 26.11.2020 based on the representation made by the petitioner's counsel.
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.6387 of 2022
still having grievance, the petitioner has to seek recall of the said order. Filing the second writ petition on the same cause of action is clearly not maintainable.
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
Rmi
+1 CC to M/s.S.DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate ( SR-24954[F] dated 10/06/2022 )
+1 CC to M/s.B.CHANDRAN, Advocate ( SR-25482[F] dated 13/06/2022 )
W.P.(MD)No.6387 of 2022 09.06.2022
SB(CO)
KB(17.06.2022) 2P 3C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the filing of a second writ petition on the same cause of action after dismissal of an earlier petition based on representation is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Kesavan
The Executive Engineer, Distribution, Madurai Metro-South, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
The Deputy Chief Internal Auditor, Board Office Audit Branch, Madurai Regional Office
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
