Madras High Court
The General Manager vs Mr.V.Srinivasan on 9 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.859 of 2021
and
CMP(MD).No.3820 of 2021
The General Manager,
Ambasamudram Co-operative Urban
Bank Ltd - A 175,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.
... Appellant/3rd Respondent
Vs
1. Mr.V.Srinivasan
... 1st Respondent/ Writ Petitioner
2. The Commissioner and Secretary
to Government,
Co-Operation, Food & Consumer
Protection Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Joint Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority,
Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents 2 & 3/
Respondents 1 & 2
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2021
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 20.11.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanakumar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam,
for R1
Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,
Special Government Pleader
for R2,R3
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.M.Saravana Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel appearing for the first
respondent and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Special Government Pleader,
appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
2. This appeal has been filed by the Co-operative Bank, who was
arrayed as third respondent in the writ petition, challenging the order, dated
20.11.2018, passed in W.P(MD).No.554 of 2015. The said writ petition was
filed by the first respondent herein challenging the proceedings of the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2021
second respondent in G.O.Ms.No.111, Co-operative Food and Consumer
Protection (CP2) Department, dated 07.10.2014, confirming the order
passed by the third respondent, dated 03.12.2010, who had in turn
confirmed the order of recovery passed by the appellant, dated 17.09.2010.
3. The learned Writ Court took into consideration the factual aspects
and noted that the order of recovery passed against the petitioner directing
recovery at the rate of Rs.750/- per month, after a lapse of seven years was
not sustainable and accordingly, quashed the said order.
4. In the penultimate paragraph of the impunged order, it has been
stated that the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
03.12.2010 is quashed. Though the appellant-bank had challenged the order
passed by the learned Writ Court in its entirety, they are aggrieved more
because of the operative portion of the order stating that the writ petition is
allowed, which would mean that not only the order of recovery is quashed,
but the prayer for granting suitable alternate employment also stands
granted.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2021
5. In our considered view, the appellant-bank need not have any such
apprehension, because the writ petition has been allowed and the impugned
order dated 03.12.2010 has been quashed and no further direction has been
issued by the learned Writ Court. Therefore, the consequential relief sought
for by the writ petitioner is deemed to have been rejected.
6. So far as the order passed by the learned Writ Court quashing the
order of recovery is concerned, we find that the reasons assigned by the
learned Writ Court are just and proper and do not call for any interference.
7. Mr.Arumugam, learned Counsel for the first respondent-writ
petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to be considered
for alternate employment, if feasible. This Court cannot make any such
observations in this appeal, but it is left open to the first respondent-writ
petitioner to invoke other remedies available to them in law.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2021
8. With the above reasons, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
09.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
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.
To
1. The Commissioner and Secretary
to Government,
Co-Operation, Food & Consumer
Protection Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Joint Registrar-cum-Appellate Authority,
Tirunelveli Region, Tirunelveli.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.859 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
W.A.(MD) No.859 of 2021
09.04.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
