Madras High Court
The State Rep. By vs T.Moommorthy on 1 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7920 of 2018
1.The State Rep. by
The District Collector,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Kadayam Union,
Kadayam, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Panchayat President,
Ravanasamuthiram Panchayat,
Ambasmudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District. : Appellants
Vs.
T.Moommorthy : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.3758 of 2014, dated
19.01.2018 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/4
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the appellants.
2.This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated
19.01.2018, in W.P(MD)No.3758 of 2014.
3.Though the respondent has entered appearance through
Counsel, none appears for the respondent not only today, but also in the
earlier hearings.
4.The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the order of
termination passed by the third appellant dated 19.02.2013. The only
ground on which the writ petition has been allowed is by holding that the
principles of natural justice have not been followed and no due
opportunity has been granted. From the counter affidavit it is seen that
the Panchayat has passed a resolution on 18.04.2014 and issued charge
memo with 7 articles of charge. The writ petitioner had submitted his
reply and thereafter, second show cause notice was issued. However, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2018
writ petitioner did not submit any reply and taking into consideration the
evidences available on record, the order has been passed.
5.Furthermore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of
termination, he ought to have filed an appeal petition before the District
Collector, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. That
apart, the writ petition itself was filed after one year, after the order of
termination was passed. The learned Writ Court has not considered the
above issues, while allowing the writ petition. Therefore, the order passed
calls for interference.
6.In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed
in the Writ Petition is set aside. Consequently, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. However, it will be open to the writ petitioner to prefer an
appeal before the District Collector, if so advised. However, there shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
01.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2018
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
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.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1102 of 2018
01.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
