Selvaraj vs The Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 1261 Mad

                                                                                  Rev.Aplc(MD)No.96/2021


                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 27.01.2022

                                                           CORAM

                         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                                AND
                               THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

                                               Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.96 of 2021
                                               in W.A.(MD)No.789 of 2011

                     Selvaraj                                        .. Petitioner/1st Respondent

                                                            Vs.

                     1.The Commissioner,
                       Melpuram Panchayat Union,
                       Pacode P.O.,
                       Kanyakumari District.                   .. 1st Respondent/Appellant
                     2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep. by its Secretary,
                       Local Administration Department,
                       Fort St. George,
                       Chennai – 9.
                     3.The District Collector,
                       Kanyakumari District,
                       Kanyakumari.
                     4.The President,
                       Mancode Village Panchayat,
                       Kanyakumari District.       .. Respondents 2 to 4/Respondents 2 to 4

                                                           ***
                     Prayer : Review Application filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code
                     of Civil Procedure against the order dated 03.03.2021 made in W.A.No.
                     789 of 2011.


                                    For Petitioner     :    Mr.S.C.Herold Singh

                                    For Respondents :       Mr.B.Christober for R4


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Page 1/4
                                                                                   Rev.Aplc(MD)No.96/2021


                                                              Mr.P.Subburaj
                                                              Special Government Pleader
                                                              for RR 1 to 3

                                                           ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

This Review Application is filed against the order passed by us on

03.03.2021. Originally the Writ Petition was filed challenging the orders

passed by the President of the Village Panchayat, terminating the

petitioner herein. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the Writ Court.

Upon appeal by the Commissioner, Melpuram Panchayat Union, the

appeal was allowed on the ground that on the relevant date of

appointment of the petitioner, there was a ban on the appointment. The

appointment was made on the ground that he offered a piece of land for

construction of an overhead tank. But that cannot be the reason for

appointment, particularly when there was a ban order, which was in force

for any fresh appointment as per G.O. (Ms) No.93, Rural Development

(C-III Department), dated 26.03.1997. In view of the said fact the

appeal was allowed. Now the review application is filed by the writ

petitioner, seeking to review the order passed in the Writ Appeal.

2.In the review application the petitioner had contended that his

termination was without any notice and in particular without following the

principles of natural justice. He also stated that though he was

terminated in January, 2005, he had been working continuously. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2/4 Rev.Aplc(MD)No.96/2021

3.Excepting repeating the arguments that were made in the Writ

Appeal, no new and important matter or evidence was discovered after

the exercise of due diligence, which was not within the knowledge of the

petitioner was put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Admittedly, there is no error apparent on the face of the records. It is

well settled that review cannot be clubbed with the original proceedings

and in the absence of any material to show that there is mistake or error

apparent on the face of the record, a review cannot be entertained. Even

when there is possibility of two views, the matter decided cannot be

reopened. The respondents have also filed a counter specifically pointing

the Government Order referred above, in which, there was a specific

prohibition for any fresh appointment by the local bodies. Therefore, the

appointment of the review applicant itself was illegal and he was rightly

terminated and there is no error in the judgment made in the Writ

Appeal.

4.In view of the above, there is no merit in this review application

and the same stands dismissed. No costs.

                                                                           (P.S.N., J.)       (S.K., J.)

                                                                                    27.01.2022
                     Index : Yes / No
                     Internet: Yes
                     sj

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3/4 Rev.Aplc(MD)No.96/2021

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

AND S.KANNAMMAL, J.

sj

To

1.The Commissioner, Melpuram Panchayat Union, Pacode P.O., Kanyakumari District.

2.The Secretary, Local Administration Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

3.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.

Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.96 of 2021 in W.A.(MD)No.789 of 2011

27.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4/4