IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.06.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.8726 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9575 of 2017
1. Union of India, rep. by the Government of Puducherry through the Secretary to Government (Education) Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
2. The Director of School Education, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar Centenary Complex, Ellapillaichavady, Puducherry. ... Petitioners Vs.
1. Vijula 2.Sajitha
3. Anima Pavithran 4.Anagha.A.V.
5.Shamna.M. 6.Minimol 7.Deepthi Haridas 8.Veena.M.P.
9.Jeeshma.M.K. 10.Abhina.K.K. 11.Nidhina.K.V.
12.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai - 600 104. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order dated 05.04.2017 in M.A.No.984 of 2016 in O.A.No.95 of 2014 on the file of the 12th respondent Tribunal and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Syed Mustafa For R1 : Mr.Ajay Kumar O R D E R K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5 April, 2017 in M.A.No.984 of 2016 in O.A.No.95 of 2014, directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost. The amount was directed to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners. We have also heard Mr.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.
3. The Central Administrative Tribunal appears to have imposed cost on account of the failure on the part of the petitioners to file reply statement. It was the case of the petitioners that they have not received the complete set of papers from the learned counsel for the respondents herein or from the Tribunal and that was the reason for the delay in filing the reply statement. In view of the said factual position, the Tribunal ought to have given reasonable time to the petitioners to file reply statement instead of imposing cost. We are therefore of the view that the direction to deposit the cost is liable to be set aside.
4. In the result, the order dated 5 April, 2017 is set aside.
5. The petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- before the Registry of this Court. We direct the Registry to refund the said amount to the petitioners forthwith.
6. In the up shot, we allow the writ petition. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
svki To The Registrar,
(K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.)
7 June 2017
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai - 600 104.
K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.
and M.V.MURALIDARAN.,J.
(svki)
W.P.No.8726 of 2017 07.06.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in