Heard Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Dhananjayan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Special Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The suspension order issued by the third respondent on 13.07.2017 is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
3.On a perusal of the said suspension order, it is seen that the writ petitioner had not collected the pending property tax dues pertaining to the year 2004-2005. The arrears of property tax has been calculated by the Commissioner, Vandavasi Municipality and the notice was issued to the writ petitioner to recover the same from the persons concerned and deposit the same into the Municipality account.
4.May that it be, the order impugned is only a suspension order issued by the third respondent. Notice and charge memo have already been issued calling for the writ petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to the loss of revenue caused to the Municipality. Thus, the writ petitioner has to submit his explanations/objections, if any, to the notice. Instead of submitting his explanations/objections, he rushed to this Court by filing a Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5.The writ against the suspension order shall be entertained only on exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner. A suspension order shall be challenged on the ground that the authority issued has no jurisdiction, incompetent to issue the suspension order or any mala fides are alleged against the official concerned. Even in the case of rising mala fides, the writ petitioner has to implead the authority against whom such allegations are made in his personal capacity. Only on these grounds, the writ petition against the suspension order shall be entertained.
6.The merits and demerits of the factual circumstances cannot be entertained in a writ petition, where the suspension order itself is under challenge. Such being the legal principle, this Court is of the firm opinion that the suspension order dated 13.07.2017 deserves no further consideration and it is left open to the writ petitioner to submit his explanations/objections and defend the case before the authorities concerned. Thus, no further consideration is required in this Writ Petition.
7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.07.2017 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ah To
1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
2.The Regional Director Municipal Administration, Vellore 12.
3.The Commissioner, Vandavasi Municipality, Vandavasi.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J., ah W.P.No.18974 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.20473 of 2017 25.07.2017