Skip to content


A. Ozanam Johny Vs. The Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Rep. by the Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai and Another - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P (MD).No. 16764 of 2016
Judge
AppellantA. Ozanam Johny
RespondentThe Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation, Rep. by the Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai and Another
Excerpt:
.....second respondent vide memo no.077681/502/g.3(1)/2015-6 dated 30.06.2016 as expeditiously within time limit.) 1. this writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 against the panel prepared by the second respondent vide memo no.077681/502/g.3(1)/2015-6 dated 30.06.2016. 2. this court is not able to entertain this writ petition. the reason is, unless there is a case made out to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of article 226 of the constitution of india on the ground that there was inaction on the part of the statutory authority in doing the particular act or on the ground that there was a glaring arbitrary exercise of power, no one can approach this court. in.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of he appeal filed by the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 against the panel prepared by the second respondent vide Memo No.077681/502/G.3(1)/2015-6 dated 30.06.2016 as expeditiously within time limit.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 11.07.2016 against the panel prepared by the second respondent vide Memo No.077681/502/G.3(1)/2015-6 dated 30.06.2016.

2. This Court is not able to entertain this writ petition. The reason is, unless there is a case made out to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there was inaction on the part of the statutory authority in doing the particular Act or on the ground that there was a glaring arbitrary exercise of power, no one can approach this Court. In the present case, none of the situation has been complied with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that more than 1-1/2 months have gone back and hence, a direction should be given. Still this Court is not able to find any merits on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel for the reasons that breathing time should be given to the respondents to act upon the request of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is Court is not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, a liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the respondents by way of a reminder and if no response is forth coming even pursuant to his reminder, he can work out his remedy in the manner known to law. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //