IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20-1-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.No.781 of 2010 and MP.No.1 of 2010 State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Principal Secretary Home Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. ..Petitioner vs 1.R.Arumugam, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CB CID, Special Investigation Team, 293, NKA Road, Alandur, Chennai 600 016. 2.The Union of India, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 3.The Union Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi. 4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 104. ..Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned direction issued in M.A.No.488 of 2009 in O.A.No.1040 of 2009 dated 23.11.2009 and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : Mr.Veeraraghavan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar Special Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnamurthy Senior Counsel for Mr.N.S.Nandakumar for R1 ORDER (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This writ petition challenges an interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, made in M.A.No.488 of 2009 in O.A.No.1040 of 2009 filed by the first respondent namely R.Arumugam, Deputy Inspector General of Police, CB CID, Madras. 2.The first respondent filed the O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the Government letter No.463-1/2009 Home (S.C) Department, dated 30.7.2009 and Lr.No.SC/5889 - 1/2009 dated 9.9.2009, on the file of the writ petitioner herein and consequently issue directions to the writ petitioner to send necessary proposal to get orders from the second respondent for year of allotment of 1991 to the applicant. Pending the same, the instant M.A. was filed by him seeking a direction to the writ petitioner herein to include and consider his name in the current panel for promotion as Inspector General of Police in the 1992 Batch. 3.The Tribunal after hearing the Counsel for the applicant and also the Counsel for the State made the following order: "The first respondent is directed to include and consider the name of the applicant in the current panel for promotion as Inspector General of Police for the 1992 Batch." The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the writ petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Veeraraghavan would submit that the order has got to be set aside for the reason that at the time when the matter was taken up for enquiry by the Tribunal, not even a notice was served upon the respondents 2 and 3; that they neither entered appearance nor filed counter; that apart from that, by passing the order, the main relief what was sought for by the first respondent, has been granted; that the very reading of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order would clearly indicate that it is a non-speaking order, and thus the order is violative of the principles of natural justice; that apart from that, as far as the first respondent is concerned, the writ petitioner State Government has got sufficient materials to indicate that he is not entitled for the relief in the main OA; that by granting the interim relief as asked for, even the main OA itself has come to a close, and under the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal has got to be set aside. 5.The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Krishnamurthy who is appearing for the first respondent/caveator. 6.After looking into the order under challenge and hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, this Court has no option than to set aside the order. As could be seen from the impugned order, there were three respondents shown in the cause title, and the order would also reflect that the Tribunal heard the Counsel for the applicant and also for the first respondent namely the writ petitioner herein, and perused the materials available on record. This would clearly indicate that the respondents 2 and 3 were not put on notice, and thus the opportunity of being heard was denied to them. A reading of the main relief disclosed in the OA, would clearly indicate that the first respondent sought for a direction to the writ petitioner to include and consider his name in the panel for promotion as Inspector General of Police for 1992 batch. Even in the miscellaneous application, such an order has been made. In short it can be stated that the main relief has been granted at the interlocutory stage even without any enquiry. Apart from all the above, the very reading of the order would indicate that it was not a speaking order. All, in the opinion of this Court, would suffice to set aside the order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 7.At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent/caveator would submit that if the present status-quo is not maintained, it would cause prejudice to the interest of the first respondent. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to the Central Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the main OA itself within a period of four weeks herefrom. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2.The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. 3.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 104. + 1 c.c. to Mr. N. Krishnakumar, Advocate. S.R.No.3577. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.3623. WP.No.781 of 2010 SJ (CO) GSK 28.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/