Alleging that one Manoharan had misappropriated a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner for the purpose of construction of a temple, the petitioner had sent complaints to the respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner has subsequently impleaded the said Manoharan as the fourth respondent in the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner has failed to take steps to serve the fourth respondent and by an order dated 11.09.2012, the writ petition as against the fourth respondent came to be dismissed.
2.On perusal of the records and typed set of papers, I am of the view that the fourth respondent is a relevant, proper and necessary party to the writ petition. In view of the petitioner's conduct in not taking steps to serve the fourth respondent and allowing the writ petition to be dismissed as against the fourth respondent, the petitioner cannot proceed with the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
To:
1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palani, Dindigul District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Ayakudi Police Station, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District..