SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
N.Veeraiah – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
W.P.No.9761 of 2026 | W.P.No.9765 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Venkataramani, Ms. S.Vinodha
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Tamilvendan

Due process requires that parties must be afforded an opportunity to present their case before adverse administrative actions are taken.

Headnote:The case involves writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash orders passed by cooperative authorities and restore the petitioners to their posts. The Court observed that the impugned orders were unconstitutional as they were passed without providing an opportunity to the petitioners. The court directed the concerned authorities to issue fresh notices, allowing the petitioners to present their cases with a chance for a hearing. The final decision allows the writ petitions and sets aside the impugned orders.

Table of Content
1. petitioners sought restoration to their posts. (Para 1)
2. the absence of a hearing violated due process. (Para 2)
3. court remits matter for fresh consideration. (Para 3)
4. writ petitions allowed. (Para 4)

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed for the following reliefs:

“To issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned orders in Na.Ka.01/2026 TNCB(1) dated 30.01.2026 passed by the 5th respondent and Na.Ka.17/2019/AA1 dated 04.06.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent, quash the same, and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 7 to restore the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager in view of the orders dated 14.03.2024 and 21.11.2024 (with effect from 01.07.2024) passed by the 5th respondent. ”

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 fairly submitted that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to put forth his case.

3. Considering the fact that the impugned orders have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and without providing him with all the relevant documents, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, enclosing all documents referred to in the show cause notice, receive his explanation, provide an opportunity of personal hearing, and thereafter pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

4. With the above directions, No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top