1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.788 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 N.Manivel ... Appellant Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thanjavur. 3.R.Agilandam ... Respondents Prayer: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7916 of 2011 dated 18.07.2011. W.P.(MD)No.7916 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.A8/3683 dated 30.06.2011 and to quash the same as illegal and direct the first and second respondents to restore the petitioner at Taluk Office at Thanjavur atleast till the expiry of minimum tenure of three years in the Maintenance Post. For Appellant : Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan, G.A. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.7916 of 2011 dated 18.07.2011, by which, the learned Single Judge in the Writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein has directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the 3rd respondent herein dated 04.07.2011, which relates to transfer. 2.The grievance of the appellant is that even though he was arrayed as third respondent in the Writ petition, the learned Single Judge has not only directed notice to be given to the 3rd respondent, but, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 also directed the authorities to consider the representation of the Writ petitioner after giving notice to the present appellant and that has resulted in the passing of another order by the 2nd respondent dated 29.07.2011 in favour of the original Writ petitioner. 3.On the face of it, the learned Single Judge has not given any positive direction. The learned Single Judge has only directed the authorities to consider the representation, which requires no interference by this Court. 4.Except giving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy against the order dated 29.07.2011 stated to have been passed by the 2nd respondent, no further orders need to be passed in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. nbj Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner, Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thanjavur. +1 cc to Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy, Advocate SR.No.28318. W.A.(MD)No.788 of 2011 Dated:18.08.2011 2P/4C RPB 07.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/