Madras High Court
M.Kamaraj vs Prof. M.Sudheer on 24 August, 2022
W.A.No.540 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.540 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.3943 of 2022
M.Kamaraj .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Prof. M.Sudheer, M.S.Ortho, D. Ortho
(under suspension)
Professor of Orthopaedics,
Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology,
Madras Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi
Government General Hospital,
Chennai-600 003.
Residing at No.2, T.T.K.Road,
1st Cross Street, Sriramnagar,
Chennai-600 018.
2.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 05.01.2022 in W.P.No.24909 of 2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.540 of 2022
For Appellant .. Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For Respondents .. Mr.A.Saravanan for R1
Mr.S.Silambanan,
Addl. Advocate General
for Ms.S.Mythreye Chandru,
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
05.01.2022 recorded on W.P. No.24909 of 2021. This appeal is
by the third party. The appeal was entertained after leave granted
by this Court.
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that
the writ petitioner got order from learned single Judge by
suppressing material fact and the complete facts now being on
record, the order passed by learned Single Judge be interfered
with. In support of this contention, learned advocate for the
appellant has taken this Court through the complaint filed in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, the orders passed thereon from time to
time, including closure of the complaint and re-opening thereof.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is submitted that the action of the writ petitioner of borrowing
W.A.No.540 of 2022
money from the appellant was misconduct, which is rightly taken
note of by the State and therefore the direction of learned single
Judge is unsustainable and therefore the same be interfered with.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
contesting respondent/ original writ petitioner has submitted that
not only the writ petitioner has not committed any wrong, the
writ appeal is by a third party, making the proceedings akin to
public interest litigation which is not known in service
jurisprudence. It is submitted that, in the event the State is
aggrieved, appropriate contest would be put forward by the writ
petitioner, however so far this appeal is concerned, the appellant
does not have any locus with regard to retirement of the writ
petitioner and withholding his relieving by State, inspite of the
fact that he had reached the age of superannuation long back. It
is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State has
submitted that, the State is also aggrieved by the order of
learned single Judge however so far the contest on behalf of the
writ petitioner against the locus of the present appellant is
concerned, the State has nothing to say and appropriate order be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.540 of 2022
passed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds
that the present appellant also is almost sailing in the same boat,
along with the writ petitioner, so far the allegation of taking
money from third party for the object less known to law, is
concerned, however that not being the subject matter of this
appeal, it should rest there. Suffice it to note that the present
appellant is the plaintiff, who seeks money to be recovered from
the writ petitioner, and that litigation is pending before the
competent Court. The said plaintiff, through this appeal, can not
be permitted to arm-twist the defendant of his suit. This appeal
need not be entertained at the hands of this appellant. We refuse
to look at the merits of the order under challenge, at the instance
of this appellant. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed.
6. We also note that, non-interference in the order passed
by learned single Judge, at the instance of the present appellant
is not to mean confirmation of the said order and in the event
any challenge is made by any person or authority having proper
locus, the sustainability of the said order may be gone into by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court.
W.A.No.540 of 2022
7. For the reasons recorded above and with the above
clarification, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U.,J.) (V.B.S.,J.)
24.08.2022
Index:No
mmi/1
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.540 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
mmi
W.A.No.540 of 2022
24.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
