1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.828 of 2011 J.Ponraj ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat) cum Commissioner, Nanguneri Panchayat Union, Naguneri, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents/Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 03.08.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.8567 of 2011. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.8567 of 2011:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18/6/2011 within the stipulated time. For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj, 1 & 2 Government Advocate. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The present writ appeal is preferred against the order of the writ court, dated 03.08.2011, passed in W.P.(MD)No.8567 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 18.06.2011, praying for revocation of suspension order. 2.Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By mutual consent of the counsel on either side, the writ appeal is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been suspended only on the ground that he is involved in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, based on a private complaint. It is contended by the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 appellant that the appellant has preferred a Revision against his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and the same is pending on the file of this Court in Crl.Rc.No.456 of 2010. It is submitted that the writ court, inspite of considering the limited prayer sought for by the appellant, went deep into the legality of the suspension order and dismissed the writ petition. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5.At the outset, it is to be stated that the appellant has sought for a limited prayer of a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 18.06.2011. However, the writ court went deep into the matter and dismissed the writ petition. It is seen that the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 138 N.I.Act, in a private complaint matter, and the said conviction has not reached finality as on date, as the appellant has filed a revision against the said conviction and the same is pending before this Court. In view of the same, there is no legal bar for considering the representation of the appellant, dated 18.06.2011, given to the 1st respondent. Such being the position, we set aside the order of the writ court and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 18.06.2011, by affording an opportunity to the appellant, and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.The writ appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat) cum Commissioner, Nanguneri Panchayat Union, Naguneri, Tirunelveli District. Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.828/2011 Dated:09.12.2011 gb RJ/28.12.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/