Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs A.Mathuram on 4 July, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7604 of 2023
The Commissioner
Madurai Municipal Corporation
Madurai-625 002 ... Appellant
-vs-
A.Mathuram ... Respondent
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 01.03.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.4277 of 2016, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen
For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr.D.Kirubakaran
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge, dated 01.03.2021, passed in W.P.(MD) No.4277 of 2016, in and by
which, the writ petition filed by the respondent / writ petitioner to quash the
charge memorandum dated 02.07.2015 was allowed, after considering the
case of the parties inter alia, on the ground that there is an unexplained delay
of eleven years in issuing the charge memorandum.
2. It is not in dispute that the allegations relate to the year 2003 –
2004 and that the charge memorandum was issued only on 02.07.2015.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in this
case, it cannot be said that the entire period of eleven years is unexplained as
the matter was unearthed by the vigilance enquiry and the same came into
light only in the year 2009. Further, the learned Single Judge has also gone
into the merits of the case and has given a clean chit to the respondent, who is
facing other proceedings also.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
5. It cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has given
findings on merits. For the purpose of holding whether the Court can quash
the charge memorandum on the ground of delay or not, the learned Single
Judge adverted to the charges to hold that that the charges framed against the
respondent do not relate to misappropriation and relate to negligence. Only to
that effect, the learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case.
There is a delay of eleven years in issuing the charge memorandum. Even
according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the delinquency came into
light after the vigilance enquiry in the year 2009 and even then there is a delay
of five years. Interestingly, when the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition on 01.03.2021, the writ appeal was filed only on 05.08.2022. Hence,
considering all the facts and circumstances, especially when the respondent is
said to have attained the age of superannuation, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Suffice to say, if
there are other proceedings against the respondent, the same may continue in
accordance with law.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
6. Accordingly, this writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.V.N., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
04.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.964 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7604 of 2023
04.07.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
