1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P (MD)No.12494 of 2011 Prakash ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Superintendent of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli. 2. Vee Sons Energy Systems Pvt Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Vee Sons Energy Systems Pvt Limited, Thuvakudi Post, Trichirappalli. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to take suitable action against the second respondent to return to B.Tech Certificate of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan For R – 1 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the first respondent to take suitable action against the second respondent to return the original Degree Certificates produced by him at the time of securing employment with the second respondent. 2. Heard Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent. 3. The petitioner is a B.Tech Graduate. He was appointed in the second respondent-Company as an Engineer (Commercial) on 14.06.2010. At the time of appointment, the second respondent took the certificate relating to the Educational qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner also appears to have entered into a contract of employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Since the petitioner could not continue his employment with the second respondent for various reasons, he submitted a letter of resignation on 10.02.2011. He continued to work in the office of the second respondent till 12.02.2011. 5. However, thereafter the request made by the petitioner to the second respondent to return the Decree Certificate, was not conceded by the second respondent. When a legal notice was issued by the petitioner, the second respondent demanded compensation for committing a breach of the agreement of employment. Therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the first respondent to initiate action against the second respondent. Since the first respondent failed to initiate any action, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. At the outset, the second respondent is a Private Company Limited. No Writ will lie against them. But by seeking a direction to the police to get back from the second respondent, the Educational qualification Certificate of the petitioner, a Writ cannot be maintained indirectly against the second respondent. It is true that the Certificate of the petitioner is his property. But the retention of the property of the petitioner by the second respondent, is in terms of a contract of employment. Therefore, whether it is correct or not is something which a civil Suit can alone is entitled to go into. The Writ Court cannot direct the first respondent to retrieve the property of the petitioner, as it would amount to the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, entering into a realm of contract without adjudicating the rights of parties. 7. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to move the appropriate civil Court for appropriate reliefs including the relief of interim mandatory injunction to return the Certificate, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Coppy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To The Superintendent of Police, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli +One cc to Mr.S.Muthukrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.38139 +One Cc to The Spl Govt. Pleader, SR.No.38091 ps rl/4c – 21.11.2011 W.P (MD)No.12494 of 2011 03.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/