Coming across an unusual petition that sought a direction to not allow an employee of BHEL, Tiruchi, to retire from service till he repays a loan obtained from the petitioner, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has wondered how such a petition was filed.
The court was hearing the petition filed by R. Marimuthu, who sought a direction to BHEL, Tiruchi, to not allow K. Dhandapani to retire from service till he repaid 6 lakh he borrowed from the petitioner.
The petitioner apprehended that if Mr. Dhandapani was allowed to retire on September 24, he would vacate the BHEL Quarters residence and it would be difficult to recover the money from him. No steps were taken by the police on the complaint lodged by him, he said.
Hearing the petition, Justice R. Suresh Kumar wondered how such a petition was filed without even understanding the jurisdiction of the court, that too before a service portfolio when no service-related dispute was involved in the matter.
The petitioner could have filed a suit for recovery of the money or followed up on the police complaint by approaching the Superintendent of Police or the Commissioner of Police or approach the magistrate court concerned seeking a direction to the police to investigate the case.
When these types of issues came to the knowledge of advocates, they must properly advise the litigants to proceed further. Some advocates without even verifying the remedy available to litigants straightaway approach the High Court, the judge said.
Dismissing the petition, the judge observed that since judicial time of the court was consumed by the unwarranted litigation, cost could have been imposed on the petitioner. However, the court would not do so as the petitioner had already lost his money in the transaction.