Madras High Court

K.Narayanan vs The District Collector on 1 March, 2024

W.P.(MD).No.4909 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 01.03.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

W.P.(MD).No.4909 of 2024

K.Narayanan
... Petitioner

1. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Sivagangai District.

2. The Project Director / Officer,
The District Rural Development Agency,
District Collectorate Complex, Sivagangai District.

3. The Assistant Director, (Panchayat),
Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department,
District Collectorate Complex,
Sivagangai District.

4. The Block Development Officer,
The Block Development Office,
Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

5. Balasubramanian

6. M.Amutha
... Respondents

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

1/7
W.P.(MD).No.4909 of 2024

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent Nos
1 to 3 herein to conducting the necessary enquiry for irregularity of tender
process on the basis of petitioner representation, dated 20.01.2024 and to take
departmental action against the respondent Nos. 5th and 6th for revenue loss of
the Government within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajesh

For Respondents : Mr.J.John Rajadurai
Government Advocate

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the

respondent Nos 1 to 3 herein to conducting the necessary enquiry for

irregularity of tender process on the basis of petitioner representation, dated

20.01.2024 and to take departmental action against the respondent Nos. 5th and

6th for revenue loss of the Government within the time stipulated by this Court.

2.In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to direct

the respondents 1 to 3 to take departmental action for the irregularities in the

tender process committed by the respondents 5 and 6, who are serving as Block

Development Officers at Ilayangudi and Kalladithidal Panchayat respectively.

Apart from that, the petitioner is not seeking any other relief.

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

3.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 in several cases. This Court in Muruganandham Vs The

Superintendent of Police and others in W.P.No.17465 of 2023, dated

15.06.2023 has dealt with similar issue and the relevant portion is extracted

hereunder:

“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.

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

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 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,

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

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 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.”

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

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”

4.In view of the above, the petitioner, who is not an employee and

as a third party, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, this

writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                                          01.03.2024
                NCC                  : Yes / No
                Index                : Yes / No
                Internet             : Yes
                PNM

                To
                1. The District Collector,
                   Office of the District Collector,
                   Sivagangai District.

                2. The Project Director / Officer,

The District Rural Development Agency, District Collectorate Complex, Sivagangai District.

3. The Assistant Director, (Panchayat), Rural Development and Panchayatraj Department, District Collectorate Complex, Sivagangai District.

4. The Block Development Officer, The Block Development Office, Ilayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District.

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

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

PNM

ORDER IN

01.03.2024

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