Disposed¶29

E.Janatha v. the Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC23 Jan 2025WP/5534/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery order; natural justice / reasonable opportunity before disciplinary or recovery order; pay fixation restoration sought; Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) Proc.No.TNPC Bd/Per/P5/003752/2014 dated 07.02.2014; writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226; follows earlier batch decision W.P.Nos.32492 to 32497 of 2013 (C.Kasthuri v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 31.08.2020); impugned order quashed and matter remanded for reconsideration after notice; disposed without costs; M.P.No.1 of 2014 closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on the terms that the impugned order dated 07.02.2014 is quashed and the matter remanded to the second respondent for reconsideration after notice and a reasonable opportunity; no order as to costs; connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 closed. ¶29

E.Janatha Vs the Government of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of recovery dated 07.02.2014 issued by the second respondent can stand when the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity before the order was issued.

¶24

Court's answer

Following the order in W.P.Nos.32492 to 32497 of 2013 (C.Kasthuri v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another, order dated 31.08.2020), the impugned order of recovery dated 07.02.2014 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for re-consideration.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The reconsideration by the second respondent shall be undertaken after putting the petitioner on notice and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), order dated 23.01.2025 in W.P.No.5534 of 2014 (E.Janatha v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Member – Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board): The petitioner challenged, by writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226, an order of recovery dated 07.02.2014 (Proc.No.TNPC Bd/Per/P5/003752/2014) issued by the second respondent, primarily on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was afforded before its issuance. Noting the submissions of both learned counsel that the identical issue stood considered in the batch W.P.Nos.32492 to 32497 of 2013 (C.Kasthuri v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another, order dated 31.08.2020), the Court, by following that order, quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the second respondent for re-consideration, expressly directing that such reconsideration be undertaken after putting the petitioner on notice and providing a reasonable opportunity. The writ petition was disposed of without costs and the connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 was closed.

¶1

W.P.No.5534 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.5534 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

E.Janatha ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Environment & Forests Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶10

2.The Member – Secretary Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.5534 of 2014

¶15

in Proc.No.TNPC Bd/Per/P5/003752/2014 dated 07.02.2014 and

¶16

quash the same and direct the second respondent to restore the pay

¶17

fixation as existed prior to the issue of the impugned order and grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran

¶19

For Respondent 1 : Mr.R.Murthi, Government Advocate

¶20

For Respondent 2 : Mr.Madhuri Donti Reddy, SC

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

An order of recovery dated 07.02.2014 is the subject of challenge

¶24

in this writ petition. Such challenge is primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity before such order was issued. Both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent submit that the issue arising for consideration in this writ petition was considered in a batch of earlier cases in W.P.Nos.32492 to 32497 of 2013 , order dated 31.08.2020,

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.5534 of 2014

¶28

C.Kasthuri v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and another . By following the said order, the order impugned herein is quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration of the second respondent. Such reconsideration shall be undertaken after putting the petitioner on notice and providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

¶29