LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-432

ANU GAYATHRI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On November 13, 2007
ANU GAYATHRI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 4. 7. 2007 of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders to rescue the third respondent from holding the post of Dean, Madras Medical College and Hospital or any other Government Medical Colleges and Institutions in Chennai or Chengalpet Medical College and Hospital until the disposal of the Criminal Case in C. C. No. 3260 of 2007 pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

(2.) THE writ petition is filed for a direction to consider the representation dated 4. 7. 2007 and to rescue the third respondent from holding the post of Dean, Madras Medical College and Hospital or any other Government Medical Colleges and Institutions in Chennai or Chengalpet Medical College and Hospital until the disposal of the Criminal Case in C. C. No. 3260 of 2007 pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that she was married to the son of the third respondent and there was some dispute between the petitioner and the son of the third respondent and a criminal case has been filed against the son of the third respondent as well as the third respondent in C. C. No. 3260 of 2007 under Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending. The petitioner's further case is that the criminal case is at the stage where P. Ws. 11 and 12 are to be examined as witnesses. The said witnesses are the persons studying under the third respondent who is working as Dean in Madras Medical College and therefore, the anticipation of the petitioner is that the said witnesses may not give correct evidence and also give evidence in favour of the third respondent under whom they are studying. In view of the same, the representation is made to the first respondent, who is the employer of the third respondent to take action against the third respondent preventing him from acting as Dean of Madras Medical College or Dean of any other Colleges in Chingleput and Chennai.