Madras High Court
R.Loganathan vs The Director General Of Police on 21 June, 2023
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
R.Loganathan ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner of Police Office,
Huzur Road, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
West Zone Panthaya Salai,
Coimbatore.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Armed Force, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
5.N.Amsaveni ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
take appropriate department action against the 5th respondent as per the
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
recommendation of the 4th respondent dated 16.11.2018 by considering
the petitioner's representation dated 27.04.2023.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard Mr.B.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1
to 4.
2. In view of the order to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to
the fifth respondent is hereby dispensed with.
3. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the
respondents 1 to 3 to act on the petitioner's representation dated
27.04.2023, wherein he had sought for taking departmental action against
the fifth respondent. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
other action against a Government employee has already been dealt with
by this Court.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
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
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
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
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 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
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
21.06.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
To
1.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai – 4.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner of Police Office,
Huzur Road, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
West Zone Panthaya Salai,
Coimbatore.
4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Armed Force, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
hvk
W.P.No.18185 of 2023
21.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
