Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Municipal ... vs G.Ganeshbabu ... Writ Petition / on 29 October, 2021
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :29.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Commissioner,
Dindigul Municipality,
Dindigul.
3.The Commissioner,
Palani Municipality,
Palani. ... Respondents/Appellants
-vs-
G.Ganeshbabu ... Writ Petition / Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 18.09.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.506 of 2012.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ragavendran,
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Gnana Gurunathan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
The writ appeal has been filed by the respondents in the writ petition
against imposing of cost of Rs.10,000/- ordered by the learned Single Judge.
2. The writ petition has been filed by the respondent/writ petitioner
challenging the order of suspension. By an order dated 18.09.2012, the
learned Single Judge, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of
suspension. However, imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- on the
appellants/respondents, on the ground that even though the order of
suspension has been stayed by this Court, that order was not implemented,
and the writ petitioner was not reinstated into service.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants
would submit that since a criminal case for corruption charge was pending
against the writ petitioner, he was not reinstated into service. Even though
the order of suspension was stayed by this Court, that order was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
immediately communicated to the authorities. Only after receipt of contempt
notice, the authorities came to know about the order passed by this Court
and the writ petitioner was reinstated into service and there is no willful
disobedience and there was no intention on the part of the respondents to
disobey the order of this Court. The contempt petition was also closed.
Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs on the
appellants is liable to be interfered with.
4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent/writ petitioner also and perused the materials available
on record.
5. Considering the above submissions, and also the fact that the writ
petitioner has been reinstated into service, there is no willful disobedience
of the order passed by this Court, we are inclined to set aside the portion of
order of the learned single Judge imposing cost of Rs.10,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
6. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[V.B.D.,J.] [S.A.I,J.]
29.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pm
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.
and
S.ANANTHI,J.
pm
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.203 of 2013
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
