Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1067 (MAD)

P. Neelakandan v. The Chief Engineer, North Chennai thermal Power Station & Others

2004-08-13

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2004
Judgment :- This writ petition has been brought forth seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in Letter. No. Se.Po/Ka/Do.1/Ka.Pa/Va.Che.Aa.Min.Ni/Varavalar/Ko. VelaiVippu/ En. 689/02 dated 19.11.2002 and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide suitable employment assistance to the petitioner. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is perused. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that he was residing at Survey No.946/1C, Vallur Village, Ponneri Taluk; that the land was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for North Madras Thermal Power Project in the year 1993; that the petitioner was displaced on account of acquisition; that the enquiry was conducted on account of the displacement of land and the petitioner was assured providing employment assistance; that the petitioner approached the authorities but his application was rejected by the 3rd respondent on 19.11.2002 on the ground that the same was not recommended by the 4th respondent.; that subsequently, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent along with the relevant document on 16.12.2002 and on enquiry, the Revenue Tahsildar recommended his case for employment assistance to the 2nd respondent but the 2nd respondent sent a reply to the 4th respondent stating that the case of the petitioner could not be considered. Under such circumstances, it has become necessary for filing this writ petition seeking necessary reliefs. 3. In answer to the above, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board would submit that the petitioner is one among the 241 persons who came forward seeking such relief in a writ petition before this court which subsequently came up before the Division Bench by way of Writ Appeal Nos.210 and 280 of 1999. 3. In answer to the above, learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board would submit that the petitioner is one among the 241 persons who came forward seeking such relief in a writ petition before this court which subsequently came up before the Division Bench by way of Writ Appeal Nos.210 and 280 of 1999. The Division Bench had occasion to consider the merits of the matter and on consideration of the legal position, the Division Bench had finally issued a direction to the respondent board to designate one of the Officer to carry out the enquiry after receiving the application from the petitioners, and further direct that if the Board so desires, it shall direct the District Collector to carry out such exercise and in that event the Board would be at liberty to place before him all such materials that it considers to be relevant and the Board, shall subject to the availability of the vacancies, nature of job and fitness of the applicants for performing that job , offer employment as Helper to such of those who qualify. Added further learned counsel that this petitioner is one among the 241 persons and this case is squarely covered under the Judgment of the said writ appeals and no separate direction is required in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner falls within the 241 persons whose case was considered before this Court but he made a feeble attempt to make a distinction in order to bring home his case but the court is unable to countenance the same. Once, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the case of the petitioner falls within the case of 241 persons and the subject matter is considered by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.210 and 280 of 1999 in which a direction was issued to the Board to consider the request of the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that no separate order is warranted. The order of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner's case does not require any consideration has got to be necessarily set aside in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench referred to above. The writ petition is partly allowed, quashing the order of the 3rd respondent and in all other respects the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.