K UMESHWAR Vs. E C I L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent- Corporation in "not conducting the enquiry against the 5th respondent which will reveal why the petitioner has resigned under duress, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of natural justice..." The petitioner prays for a consequential direction directing the respondent- Corporation to re-instate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. A very peculiar prayer indeed.

(2.) Before adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief at all, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts and the background leading to filing of this writ petition.

(3.) The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is sworn and signed by one Satish Shannkararao Sonwalker s/o late S.J. Sonwalkar, a retired employee of the Corporation in his capacity as the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner. The petitioner himself appeared in person before the Court along with his power of attorney agent. This Court at the time of hearing of the matter expressed its opinion that it will be better, if the petitioner is represented by a Counsel and offered to provide legal aid to the petitioner by engaging an Advocate to argue the case on his behalf. The petitioner as well as his power of attorney agent did not agree for the suggestion of the Court. The petitioner on the other hand insisted that he should be represented by his power of attorney agent.