Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA, J
K.P.Chokkalingam – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To Government, Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department – Respondent
WP No. 12507 of 2025 | WP No. 11859 of 2025 | WP No. 12510 of 2025 | WP No. 12614 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Mohan, Mr.R.Murali, Mr.C.Prabakaran, Mr.S.Nambi Arooran, Mr.D.Selvam
For the Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Dr. T. Seenivasan, Mr.Preethivi Chopda
Administrative decisions must provide rationale and adhere to principles of natural justice, failing which such decisions are rendered invalid.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of certiorari - Petitioners removed from posts without valid proceedings or communication - Impugned Government Orders dated 26.03.2025 not adequately justifying removal, violating principles of natural justice due to non-communication of reliance material and absence of reasoned orders. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
(B) Administrative Law - Non-speaking orders - Administrative decisions must provide rationale for actions taken - Absence of explanation for rejecting petitioners’ responses renders orders invalid. (Paras 9 and 10)
(C) Natural Justice - Right to be heard - Failure to supply relevant notings to petitioners denied opportunity to respond and defend against charges, compromising fairness of proceedings. (Paras 8 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were elected as Ward Councillors and Zonal Chairpersons in 2022. They were removed via Government Orders without adequate justification or fair process despite submitting explanations against charges.
Findings of Court:
The removal orders lacked essential reasoning and communication of reference materials, violating basic principles of administrative law and natural justice.
Issues: The core issues involve the legality of the removal orders, adherence to natural justice, and whether the orders were reasoned adequately.
Ratio Decidendi: Court observed that administrative orders must be reasoned, and failure to provide justification or allow the opportunity to address the basis of removal violates principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petitions against government orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the legality of the government orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. ruling to set aside the government orders. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 4. court's findings on violations of natural justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
COMMON ORDER
(1)With the consent of the learned counsels on either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and as common issues on facts and law are raised in the writ petitions, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
(2)The writ petitions are filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Government Orders in G.O.Ms.Nos.46, 45 and 47, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 27.03.2025 and G.O.Ms.No.41, of the very same Department dated 26.03.2025, removing the petitioners from the posts of Ward Councillors [WP.No.12507/2025 & 12510/2025] ; Councillor and Zonal Chairman [WP.No.11859/2025] ; and Councillor and Chairperson [WP.No.12614/2025] respectively.
(3)The facts in brief are that the petitioners in WP.Nos.12507, 12510 & 12614/2025 were elected as Ward Councillors of Tiruvottiyur Zone, Perungudi Zone and Usilampatti Municipal Council respectively, during the year 2022 ; and the petitioner in WP.No.11859/2025 was elected as Zonal Chairman of Sembakkam Zone on 30.03.2022. While so, on 22.10.2024, the respondents called for explanations from the petitioners on 19.11.2024 ; 25.07.2024 ; 03.03.2025 ; and 22.10.2024 respectively, regarding the allegations / charges levelled against them. The petitioners submitted their explanations on 25.11.2024 ; 01.08.2024 ; 12.03.2025 ; and 06.11.2024 respectively. Despite the detailed explanations and the supporting documents submitted by the petitioners', refuting the allegations / charges, the respondents, ignoring the explanations, passed the impugned Government Orders on 26.03.2025, removing the petitioners from their respective official posts. Aggrieved by the impugned Government Orders, the petitioners filed the above writ petitions for the aforesaid relief.
(4)The respondents filed detailed counter affidavits in each of the writ petitions in support of the impugned Government Orders and prayed that the writ petitions may be dismissed as meritless.
(5)The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the above writ petitions submitted that the impugned Government Orders were prima facie illegal as they were not only non-speaking, but also lacked application of mind. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even though the explanations submitted by the petitioners were referred to in the impugned Government Orders, there was absolutely no consideration of the same in the impugned Government Orders. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that absolutely no reasons were assigned in the impugned Government Orders for removal of the petitioners from their respective positions. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the respondents relied on the Notings/Reference of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned Government Orders, however, a copy of the Notings/Reference was not issued to the petitioners which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore prayed that the impugned Government Orders deserved to be set aside and the writ petitions allowed.
(6)In contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents, reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavits.
(7)Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
(8)The facts of the case are not disputed and therefore, they are not traversed to avoid replication. A perusal of the impugned Government Orders shows that the 1st respondent, on the basis of the Notings/Reference of the 2nd respondent, passed the impugned Government Orders. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, when the respondents relied on the Notings of the 2nd respondent, a copy of
