1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.12.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Rev Aplw (MD) No.20 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 in WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 The President, Sadayanenthal Village, Kamuthi Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District. ... Review Petitioner / 3rd Respondent Vs. 1.V.Moovendran ...1st Respondent / Writ Petitioner 2.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Block Development Officer, Kamuthi Panchayat Union, Kamuthi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents 2 & 3/ Respondents 1 & 2 Prayer : This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 and Section 114 of CPC, to review of the order dated 07.04.2011 made in WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD)4148/2010: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages, continuity of services and all other consequential benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.Gowri Shankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate for R2 No appearance for R1& R3 ORDER https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 None appears for the first and third respondents herein. The first respondent filed WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 seeking the relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service. He was employed as a Village Assistant in Sadayanenthal Village Panchayat. The writ petition came to be allowed on 07.04.2011. Seeking a review of the same, the Panchayat President of Sadayanenthal Village filed this review petition. Of course, the panchayat president, the petitioner herein is no longer having the locus standi to file this review petition. The term of the president has obviously expired. 2.But then, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner wanted to assist the court and bring to the notice of this Court that the first respondent/writ petitioner had indulged in abuse of legal process. It is evident from the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers that the writ petitioner had already filed WP(MD)No.3142 of 2010 seeking the very same relief sought for in WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010. Even during the pendency of the said writ petition, WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 came to be filed. 3.This Court went through the affidavit filed in support of WP (MD)No.4148 of 2010. The first respondent herein has not disclosed the filing of WP(MD)No.3142 of 2010. Thus, the writ petitioner had filed two writ petitions on the same cause of action. After getting an order in WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 on 07.04.2011, WP(MD)No.3142 of 2010 that was filed earlier quietly withdrawn on 18.12.2017 as if it had become infructuous. Probably, taking note of these circumstances, when admitting this Review Petition, this Court had granted an interim stay of the order dated 07.04.2011 in WP(MD) No.4148 of 2010. 4.Even today, there is no appearance on the side of the first respondent. It is obvious that the first respondent had played fraud on this Court. A person who comes before the court must make a fair disclosure of the facts. There is material suppression in this case. WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 could not have been filed during the pendency of WP(MD)No.3142 of 2010. In this view of the matter, the order dated 07.04.2011 allowing WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 is set aside. This Review Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 +1cc to Mr.R.GOWRI SHANKAR, Advocate, SR.No. 101268 +1cc to M/s.Special Government Pleader,SR.No.101078 Rev Aplw (MD) No.20 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 in WP(MD)No.4148 of 2010 SKM KK/RSK/SAR-3/11.02.2019/2P-4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/