Sriramar M Vs The Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Sriramar M Vs The Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner - a third party who was the complainant which led to a criminal case and is not connected with any service dispute - can seek, under Article 226, quashing of the first respondent's proceedings dated 06.07.2025 and a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of his representation dated 27.12.2024.

Court's answer

A stranger to a service dispute - particularly a person who was merely the complainant which led to a criminal case - cannot claim to initiate departmental action against an employee or official; disciplinary proceedings are essentially a matter between the employer and the employee. (Principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranjith Prasad Vs. Union of India, relied upon.)

Ratio / Principle

Since the writ petitioner is such a stranger/complainant, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.) dismissed a writ petition in which the petitioner, a third party who had been the complainant in a matter that led to a criminal case, sought a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent (Na.Ka.No.12413/2025 ThoVeSa2 dated 06.07.2025) and to direct the 1st respondent to take action against respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of his representation dated 27.12.2024. Relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Ranjith Prasad Vs. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 3469), the Court held that although a third party not connected with any service dispute may invoke Article 226 for a mandamus against an employee or official, disciplinary proceedings are essentially a matter between employer and employee, and a stranger - particularly the complainant who led to a criminal case - cannot claim to initiate departmental action. The prayer was therefore not entertainable; the writ petition stood dismissed with no order as to costs (09.09.2025).

W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 09.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

W.P.(MD)No.20334 of 2025

M.Sriramar ...Petitioner

Vs

1.The Registrar,

Office of the State Registrar of Co-op Societies, 110, EV.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010

2.Regional Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies, Virudhunagar Region, Office of the District Collector Campus, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3.P.Senthilkumar,

Regional Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies, Virudhunagar Region,

Office of the District Collector Campus, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District

4.Co-Operative Sub Registrar, Virudhunagar Rural, Office of the District Collector Campus, Virudhunagar.

5.Nagarajan,

Cooperative Sub Registrar, Virudhunagar Rural,

1/5

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

W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025

Office of the District Collector Campus, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings impugned of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.12413/2025 ThoVeSa2 dated 06.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and direct the 1st respondent to take appropriate action as against the respondents No.3 and 5 on the basis of petitioners representation dated 27.12.2024 made to the first respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan

For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.F.Deepak Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings

of the first respondent dated 06.07.2025 and consequently to direct the first respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2024.

It is well settled that a third party, not connected with any service dispute, can invoke the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek a mandamus to take action against any

2/5

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

W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025

employee or official. Disciplinary proceedings is essential matter between employer and the employee and a stranger particularly, a person who was the complainant which led to a criminal case, cannot claim to initiate departmental action. The said principal has been laid down by the Honb'le Apex Court in the case of Ranjith Prasad Vs. Union of India (UoI) and Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 3469 .

In view of the same, the prayer as sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court.

Accordingly, this Writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

09.09.2025

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Sn

3/5

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

W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025

To:

1.The Registrar,

Office of the State Registrar of Co-op Societies, 110, EV.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010

2.Regional Joint Registrar of Co-Op Societies, Virudhunagar Region, Office of the District Collector Campus, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

3.Co-Operative Sub Registrar, Virudhunagar Rural, Office of the District Collector Campus, Virudhunagar.

4/5

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

W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

Sn

W.P.(MD).No.20334 of 2025

09.09.2025

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

5/5