Dhevaraji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2023 Latest Caselaw 14829 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14829 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2023

Madras High Court

Dhevaraji vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 November, 2023

Author: M.S.Ramesh

Bench: M.S. Ramesh

                                                                          W.P.No.33142 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 24.11.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH

                                               W.P.No.33142 of 2023

                     Dhevaraji                                            ... Petitioner

                                                            Vs.

                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
                       Home Department, Secretariat,
                       Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

                     2.The Director General of Police,
                       Director General of Police Office,
                       Chennai – 600 009.

                     3.The Superintendent of Police,
                       Superintendent of Police Office, Tiruvannamalai,
                       Tiruvannamalai – 606 604.

                     4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Deputy Superintendent of Office, Chengam,
                       Tiruvannamalai – 606 709.

                     5.Prabhakaran,
                       Sub-Inspector of Police,
                       Pudupalyam Police Station,
                       Tiruvannamalai – 606 705.                          ... Respondents



                     1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     W.P.No.33142 of 2023


                     PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

                     India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second

                     respondent to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against

                     Prabhakaran, Sub-Inspector of Police (Respondent No.5) based on

                     petitioner's complaint petition dated 02.11.2023 within the time bound

                     manner fixed by this Court.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.V. Narasimma Moorthy

                                        For R1 to R4       : Mr.V.P.R. Elamparithi,
                                                             Additional Government Pleader



                                                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned

Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.

2. In view of the orders to be passed in this Writ Petition, no

prejudice will be caused to the fifth respondent. Hence, notice to the fifth

respondent is hereby dispensed with.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is for a direction to the

second respondent, to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings

against the fifth respondent based on the petitioner's complaint petition

dated 02.11.2023. Apart from requesting for action to be initiated against

the fifth respondent, no other relief is sought for. 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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

24.11.2023 Index:Yes Speaking order

Sni

1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Director General of Police, Director General of Police Office, Chennai – 600 009.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police Office, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai – 606 604.