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) 24845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
N.Veeraiah – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
W.P.No.9776 of 2026 | W.P.No.9801 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Ms. S.Vinodha
For the Respondents:Mr.M.Muthusamy, Government Advocate

Administrative decisions must provide the affected parties with an opportunity to present their case to ensure fairness and compliance with legal requirements.

Headnote:The petitions sought to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash impugned orders of the 3rd respondent which were passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners. The court found that the lack of fair process merits revisiting the decisions and directed the 3rd respondent to send fresh notices and issue a speaking order within four weeks. The decision established the necessity of fair hearing in administrative actions.

Table of Content
1. writ petitions initiated for restoring posts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court mandates fair process for administrative decisions. (Para 3)

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 Revision Petition No.2/2025 dated 20.11.2025 and Revision Petition No.1/2025 dated 20.11.2025 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 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 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. 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