1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN WP(MD)No.6075 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Alagumalai, S/o.Ramalingam, Deputy Inspector, Local Fund Audit Department, O/o.The Deputy Director of Local Fund, Audit, Aringnar Anna Maaligai, Madurai Corporation, Madurai-625 002. :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director, Office of the Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam 4th Floor, Chennai-600 108. 3.The Deputy Director, Office of the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, III Floor, Aringnar Anna Maaligai, Madurai Corporation, Madurai-625 002. 4.The President, Madurai Tamil Sangam, No.54, Tamil Sangam Road, Madurai-625 001. :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned letter issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.O.Na.1/46497-1/2010, dated 13.05.2011, quash the same. For Petitioner :Mr.A.Saravanan For Respondents:Mr.B.Pugalendhi,Special Government Pleader ORDER The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the proceeding of the second respondent dated 13.05.2011, in and by which, the second respondent has sought some information from the fourth respondent about the status of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.The petitioner in the Writ Petition has challenged the said notice of the second respondent to the fourth respondent on the ground that the fourth respondent is not the competent authority to whom a proceeding can be sent by the second respondent. That apart, in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that vindictively such information has been sought by one Mariappa Murali, an advocate by profession. 3.However, I am of the considered view that the fourth respondent can very well send a reply to the second respondent on the notice received by the fourth respondent from the second respondent. 4.Taking such view, I am of the considered view that the present Writ Petition is not sustainable and the same is liable to be rejected and the Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director, Office of the Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Kuralagam 4th Floor, Chennai-600 108. 3.The Deputy Director, Office of the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, III Floor, Aringnar Anna Maaligai, Madurai Corporation, Madurai-625 002. SML RP/27.06.2011/2P/4C. Order made in W.P.(MD)No.6075 of 2011 Dated: 13.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/