Madras High Court
M.Gnanaprakasam vs The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies ... on 24 March, 2022
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No. 1 of 2011
M.Gnanaprakasam ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Gopalapuram,
Chennai - 600 086.
2.The Senior Manager,
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Trichy Region,
Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar,
Trichy.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Trichy. ...Respondents /Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.8938 of 2008, dated 02.12.2010 and allow the Writ Appeal
as prayed for.
For Appellant : Mr.A.L.Ganthimathi
For Respondents : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, - RR1 & 2
Mr.Kannan, - RR3 & 4
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Challenge in the Writ Appeal is to the order of the Writ
Court, dismissing the W.P.(MD) No.8938 of 2008 filed by the petitioner,
challenging the notice issued by the third respondent under the Tamil
Nadu Revenue Recovery Act.
2. The factual background is as follows :
The petitioner who was working as a Production Engineer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
with the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, was charge-sheeted for
various delinquencies. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the
order of dismissal of service, as well as recovery of the estimated loss
caused to the Corporation. The recovery orders were passed on
30.11.1994 and a notice was issued requiring the petitioner to make good
the loss assessed at Rs.27,45,922.48/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs
Fourty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Two and Forty Eight
Paise only), on 13.08.1997. Though the Corporation attempted to take
action for recovery, it was threatened with contempt, hence, no action
was taken, however, the writ petition that was pending was disposed in
the year 2000. Thereafter, the Corporation attempted to recover the
money under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, by impugned order,
dated 10.09.2008. The third respondent issued the impugned distraint
order under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. It is
this notice, which was challenged in the writ petition.
3. The main contention that was raised by the petitioner was
that the loss caused to the Corporation cannot be recovered as arrears of
land revenue under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, in the
absence of any provision for such recovery in the relevant Service Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
The Writ Court, however, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the notice for
recovery of Rs.1,00,071.98/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy One and
Ninety Eight Paise only), was dismissed by this Court. Unfortunately,
the Writ Court did not go into the contention of the petitioner regarding
the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we
required Mr.Mohankumar, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation
to report as to whether there is any provision in the Service Rules of the
Corporation to enable the Corporation to recover the loss caused because
of the delinquencies of the employee, as land revenue.
5. The learned counsel, upon instructions, would submit that
there is no such provision under the Service Rules of the Corporation
enabling the Corporation to recover the loss, as if it is arrears of land
revenue. In the absence of such enabling power, we do not think that the
Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, could be invoked by the respondent
- Corporation to recover the loss caused by the misconduct of an Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
of the Corporation. In view of the same, we have no other option but
allow the Writ Appeal, setting aside the order of the Writ Court.
6. The Writ Appeal will stands allowed. The impugned
demand, dated 10.09.2008, will stands quashed. No costs. It is open to
the Corporation to recover the loss by taking appropriate legal
proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
[R.S.M, J.] & [N.S.K., J.]
24.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
rm
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.216 of 2011
To
1.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Gopalapuram,
Chennai - 600 086.
2.The Senior Manager,
The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,
Trichy Region,
Trichy.
3.The Tahsildar,
Trichy.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
Trichy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rm
JUDGMENT IN
W.A(MD)No.216 of 2011
24.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
