1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.8433 of 2011 M.Kaliyamoorthy ... Petitioner -Vs- The Special Officer Trichirappalli District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office Trichy - 2 Trichy District ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 07.07.2011 within stipulated period. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar O R D E R The petitioner, stated to be working as an Assistant in Trichirappalli District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trichy District, claims to have sent a representation, dated 07.07.2011, to consider his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager on the basis of seniority. Within a period of three weeks, the petitioner has approached this Court for a Mandamus directing that the representation should be disposed of within a stipulated period. In the case on hand, the representation of recent origin dated 07.07.2011 and not even a reasonable time is given to the respondent to act on the representation. In such view of the matter, mandamus sought for cannot be granted at this juncture. It is open to the petitioner to review his request, after some time, if he so pleases. 2. Time and again this Court has held that unless there are materials to substantiate that there is an infringement of statutory or legal right and that there is a failure on the part of the respondent to adhere to the statutory provisions or rules or regulations, no mandamus can be issued. 3. Mr.Shanmuga Raja Sethupathy, sought permission of this Court to take notice on behalf of the respondent. It is well settled by a Division Bench of this Court. In M.Ranka Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu High Court reported in (1991) 2 LW 225 while explaining the right of a Caveator, in a writ appeal, the Division Bench observed that:- "A caveat is nothing but a formal notice, which literally is not different from a caution. Its origin as a petition to Court is generally traced to the proceedings in the Courts of probate. It is just an intimation given to the Court notifying it that it ought to beware or suspend proceedings before it until the merits of the caveat are determined. It does not create any obligation upon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the Court to desist from making any order in the proceeding before it unless the caveat is decided. All that a Court is expected to do on the face of a caveat is to beware and to hear the caveat or before a decision is taken. A caveator does not get a right to defeat the proceedings at the there-shold or to insist that he must be heard on merits of the case before any interim order is passed. The hearing at the stage of the admission of an appeal to the caveator will not take the place of final hearing of the appeal at the end of the proceeding. That is why Courts allow caveators to be heard in opposition to the petition in appeal but not to be heard in opposition to the admission of the appeal to a hearing. This is the rule applied to civil appeals also." 4. Learned counsel further represented that the Court grants permission to the State / Central Government, public sector undertakings and even Panchayats to take notice and likewise. Learned counsel for Co- operative Societies should also be permitted to take notice, at the time of admission. Such contention is untenable in law, for the reason that a Society is a private body registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, whereas, the State / Central Government, Public Sector and others, fall under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and that they are represented by Government Counsel. If a person, (including a public Society) is permitted to take notice, at the time of admission in a writ proceeding and argue the case that would amount to entertaining a Caveat, which is not permissible. Therefore, the request is rejected. 5. With the abovesaid observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. SD/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To The Special Officer Trichirappalli District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office Trichy - 2 Trichy District +1. CC to Mr.R.Sundar, Advocate, SR.No. 25180 vsg W.P.(MD).No.8433 of 2011 29.07.2011 TR : 23.08.2011: 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/