1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:16.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Writ Appeal (MD) No.900 of 2011 A.T.T.Senguttuvan ... Appellant vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Commissioner Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai. 4.Inspectors of Panchayat, The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents Writ Appeals filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act against the order passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.SUDHAKAR dated 05.09.2011 in W.P.(MD) No.9213 of 2011 on the file of this Court. PRAYER IN WP(MD)No.9213 of 2011 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first res herein in G.O(2D)No.32 (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR IV) Department) dated 12.08.2011 and the appended notification thereon and quash the same. For Appellant .. Mr.E.V.N.Siva For Respondents .. Mr.K.Mahendran Special Government Pleader JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the order impugned passed by the first respondent has been set aside by remanding the matter back for fresh consideration. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the very initiation of the proceeding by the first respondent is one without jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submitted that without furnishing the document, which is the basis of the show cause notice, the enquiry cannot be proceeded. However, the appellant himself has sought for 10 days time to give his reply. 3. Therefore, We do not want to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, particularly, when the order impugned has already been set aside and the question of jurisdiction can very well be raised before the first respondent, in which case, the first respondent shall consider the same well before passing the final orders. Insofar the documents sought for by the appellant is concerned, the appellant can very well ask for the same from the first respondent and the first respondent shall decide the question of furnishing the document, when such a request has been made and thereafter can proceed with the enquiry. It is made clear that no final order shall be passed before deciding the issue of furnishing the document sought for by the appellant. The appellant is granted two weeks time to make such a request to the first respondent. With the above direction, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: 1.The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Fort. St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Commissioner,Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Chennai. 4.Inspectors of Panchayat, The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District. 5.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District. +1 CC to Mr.E.V.N.Siva, Advocate, SR.No.31810 +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.32080 RR Judgment Made in WA(MD) No.900 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 16.09.2011 TR : 23.09.201 : 2p/8c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/