Madras High Court
Dr.S.Subramanian vs The Registrar on 28 September, 2021
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.17433 & 17434 of 2021
Dr.S.Subramanian,
Professor, Department of Biochemistry,
University of Madras, Guindy Campus,
Chennai – 25. ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.Dr.V.Elangovan,
Professor and Head,
Department of Biochemistry,
University of Madras,
Guindy Campus, Chennai – 600 025.
3.The Principal Secretary and
Members-Syndicate,
University of Madras,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
4.The Science City,
Rep by its Vice-Chairman,
Gandhi Mandapam Road,
Chennai – 600 025. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
prayed to recall and review the Judgment dated 14.07.2021 in W.P.No.31922
of 2018 and consequently allow the writ petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Parthasarathy
For R1 & 3 : Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram
For R2 & 4 : No Appearance
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner in the main Review Petition is that,
though he had sought for information in his earlier representations and for
retrieving the original testimonials, the respondents had not addressed their
grievances and returned the documents.
2. The writ petition came to be closed, based on the averments in the
counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, wherein it was stated that the
petitioner's representations were already considered and thereby, the prayer
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
has become infructuous. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a
Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's
three representations dated 02.07.2018 only. It is in this connection that this
Court had felt that the prayer had become infructuous, in view of the fact that
the first respondent had disposed of the representation.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner herein is not only deprived of the original testimonials which was
the subject matter of his representations, since the first respondent had failed
to return the same, but also that they are not in a position to challenge the
inaction on the part of the first respondent, in view of the earlier order passed
in the writ petition for the same cause of action.
4. The scope of reviewing an order of this Court is very limited to
rectify the apparent errors on the face of the order. The grounds raised in the
present review petition may not be such grounds to review the order, but
rather may amount to reappraisal of the grievance of the petitioner once again.
Nevertheless, if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh writ petition
touching upon the same cause of action or the inaction on the part of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
respondents in returning the original testimonials, the ends of justice could be
secured.
5. In the light of the above observations, this Review Petition stands
closed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in the aforesaid
terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.09.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
hvk/ata
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
To
1.The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Principal Secretary and Members-Syndicate,
University of Madras,
Higher Education Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
http://www.judis.nic.in
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk/ata
REV.APLW.No.101 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.17433 & 17434 of 2021
28.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
