R.Yogesh Kumar v. The Secretary to Government of India
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the death of the petitioner's father is in the year 2010, however, he made a representation in the year 2021, after a lapse of 11 years and filed the present writ petition…
- Para 55. Admittedly, the petitioner's father died on 23.03.2010 while he was working with the 2nd respondent. Though his father died in the year Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25908 of 20222010, the petitioner has made representation after a lapse of 10 years and thereafter, filed…
Judgment
W.P.No.25908 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.08.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANIW.P.No.25908 of 2022R.Yogesh Kumar... PetitionerVs.
The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Sasthiri Bhavan, New Delhi.
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (CPCL), New No.536, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018, rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
The Managing Director, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (CPCL), Manali Refinery Plant, Manali, Chennai – 600 068. RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to entrust the investigation pertaining to death of the petitioner's father Mr.Rajendran on 23.03.2010 night, while he was at employment with the 2nd respondent to an appropriate investigation agency. Page No.1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25908 of 2022 For Petitioner: Mr.Shivakumarfor M/s.M.GunasekaranFor Respondents: Mr.K.RamanamoorthyCentral Government Standing Counsel [R1]Mr.Sanjay Mohanfor M/s.Ramasubramaniam & Associates [R2 & R3]*****ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to entrust the investigation pertaining to death of the petitioner's father Mr.Rajendran on 23.03.2010 night, while he was at employment with the 2nd respondent to an appropriate investigation agency.2. The case of the petitioner is that, his father died 23.03.2010, however his death was not natural. Therefore, suspecting the death of his father, the petitioner made a complaint before the 1st respondent. However, till date, no order has been passed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for appropriate orders. Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25908 of 20223. Though very many grounds have been raised in this writ petition, however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, it would suffice, if this court issues a direction to the 1st respondent to entrust the investigation pertaining to the death of the petitioner's father to an investigation agency, within a time frame that may be stipulated by this court.
Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the death of the petitioner's father is in the year 2010, however, he made a representation in the year 2021, after a lapse of 11 years and filed the present writ petition before this court in the year 2022, which cannot be entertained. He further submitted that, the 1st respondent have no power to pass any order. It at all the petitioner has any grievance, he should have made a complaint before the law enforcing agency at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Admittedly, the petitioner's father died on 23.03.2010 while he was working with the 2nd respondent. Though his father died in the year Page No.3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25908 of 20222010, the petitioner has made representation after a lapse of 10 years and thereafter, filed the present writ petition after a period of 11 years, which cannot entertained at this point of time. Further, this court is of the view that the 1st respondent has no power to pass any orders to entrust the investigation with regard to the death of the petitioner's father to an investigation agency. If at all the petitioner has grievance with regard to the death of his father, he should have made a police complaint before the law enforcing agency at the relevant point of time itself. Hence, this 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.22.08.2024Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation Case : Yes / NospPage No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25908 of 2022To1.The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Sasthiri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (CPCL), New No.536, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.3.The Managing Director, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (CPCL), Manali Refinery Plant, Manali, Chennai – 600 068. Page No.5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25908 of 2022M.DHANDAPANI, J.spW.P.No.25908 of 202222.08.2024Page No.6 of 6
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.