P N CHOCKALINGAM PILLAI Vs. A NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.6.1996 allowing the Writ Petition No.16164 of 1988.

(2.) THE third respondent in the said writ petition is the appellant. For the convenience, we shall refer the parties as described in W.P.No.16164 of 1988.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Judge, among the several contentions, it was mainly contended that the said Government order issued by the Government extending the benefit of the Act has not been placed before the Table of the Tamil Nadu Legislature. According to him Sec.1(6) of the Act is a mandatory in nature. Failure to place before the Tamil Nadu Legislature vitiates the entire proceedings. The learned Judge after perusing the records and after considering the arguments at length, has concluded that, " (i) no material to show that the Government acted mala fide in extending the provisions of the Act to Virahanur village; " (ii) The discretionary power of the Government has been properly exercised in the present case; " (iii) Sec.1(6) of the Act is mandatory provision, which has not been complied with by the Government accordingly quashed the impugned order. Against the said order of the learned Judge, the third respondent therein has filed the present writ appeal.