Madras High Court
R.Pandiyan vs The General Manager on 21 September, 2022
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.16035 of 2022
R.Pandiyan .. Appellant
Vs
1.The General Manager,
The Krishnagiri District Co-op. Milk Producers
Union Ltd.,
Kanagamutulu Post,
Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri Dt.,
Tamil Nadu-635 001.
2.The Manager(Administration),
Krishnagiri District Co-op. Milk Producers
Union Ltd.,
Salem Main Road,
Krishnagiri-635 001. ..Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the
order dated 28.07.2022 made in W.P.No.17105 of 2022.
For Appellant .. Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
28.07.2022 recorded on group of writ petitions being W.P.Nos.17099,
17103, 17105 and 17108 of 2022. This appeal arises from
W.P.No.17105 of 2022.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant / writ petitioner has
submitted that the dismissal of the writ petition is erroneous and the
petition ought to have been entertained. It is noted that learned
advocate for the appellant has also taken this Court extensively
through the merits of the matter, however for the reasons, which are
being noted hereinafter, the merits of the matter are not required to
be gone into. It is noted that, learned single Judge has, following the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court, ordered that the writ
petition need not be entertained, since the respondents are the District
Co-operative Milk Producers Union and that it is the appropriate
authority under the statute before which, the writ petitioner needs to
approach. We find that, refusal to exercise discretion on the ground of
alternative remedy can not be said to be an error, much less any error
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
apparent on the face of record, which would call for any interference
under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. This appeal therefore needs to be
dismissed.
3. It is also noted that, learned advocate for the appellant has
also referred to some of the decisions, where discretion was
exercised either by the learned single Judge or by the Division Bench
of this Court. As noted above, on the face of the availability of
alternative remedy, when learned single Judge has refused to exercise
discretion, the same would not call for any interference. Since this
appeal is not being entertained only on this ground, the merits of the
matter are not gone into. Not entertaining this appeal is not to mean
rejection of the case of the writ petitioner on merits.
4. This writ appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U.J.,) (D.B.C.J.,)
21.09.2022
Index:No
raa/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
To
1.The General Manager,
The Krishnagiri District Co-op. Milk Producers
Union Ltd.,
Kanagamutulu Post,
Salem Main Road, Krishnagiri Dt.,
Tamil Nadu-635 001.
2.The Manager(Administration),
Krishnagiri District Co-op. Milk Producers
Union Ltd.,
Salem Main Road,
Krishnagiri-635 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
raa
W.A.No.2150 of 2022
21.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
