S.Masilamani Karthikeyan vs The Burn Standard Company Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 23989 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 23989 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2021

Madras High Court

S.Masilamani Karthikeyan vs The Burn Standard Company Limited on 7 December, 2021

                                                               1

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 07.12.2021

                                                             Coram

                                    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
                                                         and
                             The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                                   W.A.No.2916 of 2021
                                                and C.M.P.No.19780 of 2021

                     1.S.Masilamani Karthikeyan

                     2.S.Rajadurai Rajinikanth                                      ..Appellants

                                                              Vs


                     1.The Burn Standard Company Limited
                       (Now as SAIL Refractory Company Limited)
                       rep. By its Chief Operating Officer,
                       Salem – 636 302.

                     2.The Security Officer,
                       Burn Standard Company Limited,
                       (Now as SAIL Refractory Company Limited)
                       Salem – 636 302.

                     3.The Commissioner,
                       Salem City Corporation, Salem.                             ..Respondents


                                  Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
                     order dated 01.10.2021 made in W.P.No.13799 of 2016.


                                       For Appellants   ..     Mr.R.Manickavel




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                             2




                                                         JUDGMENT

(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 01 October

2021 recorded on W.P.No.13799 of 2016. The appeal is by the original

writ petitioners.

2. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the

relief sought was to forbear respondents 1 and 2 from objecting or

interfering including the appellants/ original petitioners' transport by

plying all kinds of vehicles including Cranes, JCBs, Poclain, Tippers

etc., from the appellants' factory. Learned advocate for the appellants

has submitted that, whether it is a public road or not, according to

him, there is no dispute as the civil court has already gone into that

question and the decree, according to him was obtained by the person

from whom the present appellants have purchased the property. It is

submitted that the dismissal of writ petition on the ground of that

being disputed question of facts needs to be interfered with. It is

submitted that this appeal be entertained.

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

3. Having heard learned advocate for the appellants and having

considered the material on record, this Court finds that the prayer of

the appellants/ original writ petitioners are as under:

“Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from objecting or interfering including the petitioner-s right of transport by plying all kind of vehicles including Cranes, JCB, Poclain, Tippers etc., from the petitioner-s factory at Jagirammapalayam, Co~Magnasite Mines, Jagir Kaminaickepatti, Mottur Kattuvalavu, Salem District, now within the limits of Salem City Municipal Corporation to the main road National Highways Road (NH~47) through the public road running East~West and called Maankuppai Village Road.”

4. Learned Single Judge, having considered the material on

record including the contest put forward by the respondents, arrived at

the conclusion that whether that can be said to be a public road or not,

that itself is the fact which is in dispute. According to learned Single

Judge, such a disputed question of fact could not be gone into in writ

jurisdiction and therefore without granting any relief, the appellants

are directed to resort to other appropriate remedy.

5. We find that non interference by learned Single Judge, in this

factual background, can not be said to be any error, which can be

termed to be an error apparent on the face of record, which can be

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

gone into by this Court in an intra-court appeal. We find that no

interference is required.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant has also relied on the

decision of the Supreme Court of India in State of Himachal Pradesh

and another vs Umed Ram Sharma and others reported in 1986 (2)

SCC 68. We find that, if the facts of the present case are kept in view

vis-a-vis the said judgment, the same would not take the case of the

appellants any further. That judgment therefore will not help the