Madras High Court
R. Sujendhra vs Director General Of Police on 22 December, 2023
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.P.No.35736 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.35736 of 2023
and W.M.P.No.35714 of 2023
R. Sujendhra ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Director General of Police,
Post Box No.601,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.Superintendent of Police,
Nilgiris District,
Upper Bazar,
Ooty – 643 001.
3.Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore,
No.62, Old Post Office Road,
Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
4.C.S. Velusamy ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.35736 of 2023
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents
to initiate action against the 4th respondent on the petitioner's
complaint, dated 18.02.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.P. Chockalingam
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M. Bindran,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
In view of the order to be passed in this Writ Petition, no
prejudice would be caused to the fourth respondent herein and hence,
notice to the said respondent is dispensed with.
2. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the
respondents 1 to 3, to initiate action against the fourth respondent on
the petitioner's complaint dated 18.02.2023. Apart from requesting for
action to be initiated against 4th respondent, no other relief is sought
for. The locus of a third party to seek for departmental or any other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
action against a Government employee has already been dealt with by
this Court.
3. At the outset, the Writ Petition itself is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of maintainability since this Court had already held in
the case of 'Sudalaikannu Vs. The Principal Secretary to
Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department, Secretariat, Chennai and others' passed in W.P.(MD)
No.8871 of 2018, dated 26.04.2018, that a third party cannot stand in
the way between an employee and the employer in matters of service
disputes, especially, in the context of disciplinary proceedings. For
such a proposition, the learned Single Judge therein had placed
reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench and had come to
such a conclusion in the following manner:-
..... “14. As it is rightly pointed out by the learned
Amicus, the law in this regard is well settled, as a
third party, not connected with any service dispute
cannot maintain the Writ Petition, invoking Article
226 of the Constitution of India, on the service side
seeking a Writ of Mandamus to take action against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
any employee or officials.
15. The theory of personal injury can very well
be pressed into the service in this case.
16. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party
and though he has claimed to be the social worker,
he cannot claim any personal injury of the case of
the alleged delayed action of disciplinary
proceedings against the official respondent against
the private respondent.
17. Once the third party cease to be the
person, without any personal injury, he cannot
maintain the Writ Petition as an adversary Writ
Petition.
18. If the petitioner files any adversary writ
petition on the service side, because he is a third
party, the next question would be naturally raised is
that, whether he can file such petitions by way of
Public Interest Litigations(PIL).
19. In this regard, it is also brought to the
notice of this Court that, the very same petitioner
already approached this Court by filing a PIL, where
the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.(MD).No.6734 of 2007 in Sudalaikannu Vs., the
Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department and others dated 23.12.2008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
made the following observations which can usefully
be pressed into service herein.
“It is seen that the petitioner belongs to a
particular political party and he also functioned as a
Councilor of the Municipal Corporation. Further, the
petition has been filed on frivolous reasons after
knowing fully well that action is being taken against
respondents-4 to 7. It has been repeatedly held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court that
vexatious applications in the guise of public interest
litigations should not be entertained. Since the
present petition is one of such kind, we hold that the
petitioner has no locus standi to file it and the same
is liable to be dismissed.”
20. Since the very same petitioner has been
branded as the frivolous litigant by the judicial
pronouncement of the Division Bench Judgment cited
supra, with regard to the genuineness of the litigant's
nature, attached with the nature of this Court, one
cannot have any doubt that, the petitioner certainly
has not approached this Court for any good intention
and he might have approached this Court with any
other private intention (i.e.,) the reason why the
petitioner knowing well that he cannot file the writ
petition against the official respondent herein, for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the alleged inaction on their part on the private
respondents herein by way of service dispute, has
filed this Writ Petition.
21. If such kind of frivolous litigations are
entertained by this Court, that too, in exercising the
extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court is afraid that, there will be pouring of such
frivolous litigations by unscrupulous persons every
day and that will open the flood gate to so many
unscrupulous persons to abuse the process of law, to
settle their personal score in the guise of service
dispute. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to
hold that this petitioner does not have any locus to
maintain this writ petition for more than one reason,
as he has already been considered to be a frivolous
litigant by the Division Bench of this Court.”
4. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the
petitioner herein, who is not an employee and is a third party, cannot
maintain the present Writ Petition. Hence, the prayer sought for by the
petitioner in this Writ Petition does not deserve consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.12.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Internet: Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Sni
To
1.Director General of Police,
Post Box No.601,
Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
2.Superintendent of Police,
Nilgiris District,
Upper Bazar,
Ooty – 643 001.
3.Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore,
No.62, Old Post Office Road,
Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH,J.
Sni
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
