Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Tamilnadu Civil Supplies v. M.Khader Mohideen - Writ Appeal No.1619 of 2002 [2007] RD-TN 769 (1 March 2007)


Dated: 01.03.2007


The Honourable Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM


The Honourable Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

Writ Appeal No.1619 of 2002


W.A.M.P. No.2813 of 2002

1. Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,

rep. by the Chairman cum Mg. Director,

42, Thambusamy Road,


Chennai 600 010.

2. The Senior Regional Manager,

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies corporation Ltd.,

Madras Region, No.7,

Conransmith Road,


Chennai 86. ..Appellants Vs

1. M.Khader Mohideen

2. T.S.Mahadevan

3. Padmini Amba Shankar

4. C.S. Nagarajan

5. C.S.Vasanthalakshmanan (minor)

6. C.S.A.Ganesh (Minor)

(Minors rep. by

natural guardian

Padmini Amba Shankar) ..Respondents Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.06.2000, made in W.P. No.14838 of 1992. For Appellants : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : No appearance. JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The above Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.06.2000, passed in W.P. No.14838 of 1992, in and by which, the learned Judge, accepting the case of the petitioners, allowed their writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3. Learned counsel placed before us the proceeding of the Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, dated 21.06.1988. A perusal of the said proceeding shows that, though an opportunity was afforded to the writ petitioners, the authority, without calling for any explanation from them, determined the quantity of shortage, value etc. The proceeding further shows that the amount payable by each person is Rs.624.98. Prima facie, we are of the view that, even before calling for objections/explanation, the officer arbitrarily concluded that the shortage was caused at the instance of the writ petitioners and also worked out the actual loss. Though all the above mentioned relevant aspects have not been adverted to in the impugned order, the learned single Judge is right in concluding that, in the absence of proper enquiry, recovery cannot be effected. We agree with the said conclusion. It is brought to our notice that the fourth respondent viz., C.S.Nagarajan, is no more and that other respondents were not duly served with notice in the Writ Appeal. Taking note of the above aspect and in view of our conclusion on the merits of the case, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. JI.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.