The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a third party seeking action against a police inspector. Citing prior decisions, the Court held that a third party lacks locus standi in service disputes and the petitioner had been previously dismissed as a frivolous litigant.
No relief granted; the Writ Petition was dismissed.
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.No.31898 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
M/s.OST Logistics Rep.by its Manager Mr.S.Kannan, No.76/52, Flat No.A2-S4 Metal Factory Road, Naveen's Court Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai Chennai-29. ... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to suspend and censure the second respondent from service.
1/7
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sathyanarayanan For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader -for RR 1 and 2
ORDER
In view of the order to be passed in this Writ Petition, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents 3 and 4 herein and hence, notice to the said respondents is dispensed with.
2. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the first respondent, to consider the petitioner's representation, requesting to take action against the second respondent for the illegalities and irregularities committed by him. Apart from requesting for action to be initiated against the second respondent, no other relief is sought for. The locus of a third party to seek for departmental or any other action against a Government employee has already been dealt with by this Court.
3. At the outset, the Writ Petition itself is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability since this Court had already held in the case
of 'Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
2/7
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
Secretariat, Chennai and others' passed in W.P.(MD) No.8871 of
2018, dated 26.04.2018, that a third party cannot stand in the way between an employee and the employer in matters of service disputes, especially, in the context of disciplinary proceedings. For such a proposition, the learned Single Judge therein had placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench and had come to such a conclusion in the following manner:-
..... “ 14. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus, the law in this regard is well settled, as a third party, not connected with any service dispute cannot maintain the Writ Petition, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on the service side seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against any employee or officials.
3/7
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
“It is seen that the petitioner belongs to a particular political party and he also functioned as a Councilor of the Municipal Corporation. Further, the petition has been filed on frivolous reasons after knowing fully well that action is being taken against respondents-4 to 7. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that vexatious applications in the guise of public interest litigations should not be entertained. Since the present petition is one of such kind, we hold that the petitioner has no locus standi to file it and the same is liable to be dismissed.”
4/7
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
supra, with regard to the genuineness of the litigant's nature, attached with the nature of this Court, one cannot have any doubt that, the petitioner certainly has not approached this Court for any good intention and he might have approached this Court with any other private intention (i.e.,) the reason why the petitioner knowing well that he cannot file the writ petition against the official respondent herein, for the alleged inaction on their part on the private respondents herein by way of service dispute, has filed this Writ Petition.
4. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the petitioner
herein, who is not an employee and is a third party, cannot maintain the
5/7
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
present Writ Petition. Hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition does not deserve consideration.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
08.11.2023
Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No KST
To
6/7
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH, J.
KST
W.P.No.31898 of 2023
08.11.2023
7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a third party who is not an employee has locus standi to seek departmental action against a government employee.
Whether the petitioner, having been previously branded a frivolous litigant in a related PIL, can maintain the present writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudalaikannu Vs. the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and othersRelied on¶39
W.P.(MD).No.6734 of 2007
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. OST Logistics
The Commissioner of Police
Inspector of Police
The Manager Sundaram Finance Limited
M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited
M.S. RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
