Madras High Court
A.Muruganandham vs The Superintendent Of Police on 15 June, 2023
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
A.Muruganandham ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
18, Pudhukuppam New Street,
Meenakshi Nagar,
Cuddalore -607 001.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District – 606 001.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Managalampet Police Station,
Cuddalore District – 606 104.
4. Devi,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Mangalampet Police Station. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to
conduct an enquiry and to take appropriate legal and departmental actions
as against the 4th respondent by considering the representations of the
petitioner dated 26.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Nagaraju
For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi
1 to 3 Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard Mr.P.Nagaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to
2. In view of the order to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to
the fourth respondent is hereby dispensed with.
3.The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the first
respondent to conduct an enquiry and to take appropriate legal and
departmental actions as against the 4th respondent by considering the
representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2023. Apart from requesting
for action to be initiated against the fourth respondent, no other relief is
sought for in the representation. The locus of a third party to seek for
departmental or any other action against a Government employee has
already been dealt with by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
4.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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
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.”
5.The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the petitioner
herein, who is not 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.
6.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
15.06.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Cuddalore District,
18, Pudhukuppam New Street,
Meenakshi Nagar,
Cuddalore -607 001.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District – 606 001.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Managalampet Police Station,
Cuddalore District – 606 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH, J.
vga
W.P.No.17465 of 2023
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
