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) 94206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
Prasannakumar R – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Ministry of Railways, Chennai – Respondent
Writ Petition | WMP Nos. 42319 | WMP Nos. 42320 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Maheshwari
For the Respondents: AR.L. Sundaresan, A.R. Sakthivel

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, following objections regarding maintainability based on the precedent in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India.

Headnote:(A) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Jurisdiction - When service matters are concerned, the availability of an alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal may render a writ petition non-maintainable in light of judicial precedents. (Para 1)

Issues: Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • practice and procedure
    • maintainability (Para 1)
    • withdrawal of petition (Para 2, 3)
  • administrative law
    • service tribunal (Para 2, 3)

Table of Contents

1. Writ petition challenged a service matter — Objection raised on maintainability before the High Court. (Para 1 )

2. Respondent objected to maintainability citing L. Chandra Kumar — Petitioner sought withdrawal to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 )

3. Confronted with the objection, the court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition. (Para 2 )

4. Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 3 )

5. Whether a writ petition against a service matter is maintainable before a High Court?

Objection to maintainability was raised based on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, leading the petitioner to withdraw and seek relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal. (Para 1 , 2 )

ORDER

(1) Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India raised objection on the maintainability of the petition by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others , reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261.

(2) Confronted with the same the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai for further course of action.

(3) Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought for. No costs.

Consequently, the 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