Tamil Nadu Veetu Vasathi Variya Thozhilalar Munetra Sangam vs The Managing Director

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner, which is a trade union of employees of the Tamilnadu Housing Board, has come up with the above writ petition, seeking a Mandamus to direct the Housing Board to implement its own order dated 10.4.2014 directing the third respondent herein to vacate the rest room occupied by him.

Heard Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V. Anandhamoorthy, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2. Mr.L.Mouli, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent.

As stated earlier, the petitioner is a trade union of the workers of the Tamilnadu Housing Board. It appears that there is a rest room, which, according to the petitioner, has been illegally occupied by the third respondent. Way back on 10.4.2014, the Housing Board passed an order directing the third respondent to vacate the rest room. But, neither the third respondent vacated nor did the Housing Board take any steps to enforce its order. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

However, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the third respondent also happens to be the State Secretary of another trade union of workers of the Housing Board and that representing the trade union, he had already filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 2196 of 2014 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Housing Board from interfering with their possession and enjoyment. In that suit, the petitioner herein, in his individual capacity, has already filed an application on 17.7.2014 for impleadment. The above writ petition was filed by the petitioner representing the trade union, on 18.7.2014. Therefore, it is clear that the present writ petition was filed only after the petitioner came to know about the suit filed by the third respondent.

But, it is contended by Mr. M.Dhandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 81 of the Tamilnadu Housing Board Act, the suit filed by the third respondent was not at all maintainable and that therefore, the pendency of the suit is not a bar for the petitioner to file a writ petition.

Though technically the petitioner may be right, the petitioner, after having filed an application for impleadment in the suit, is expected to bring this to the notice of the civil court and seek dismissal of the suit. It is only thereafter that they can pursue a parallel remedy. The petitioner has not chosen to ignore the suit in toto. He has chosen to file an application for impleadment. In such circumstances, the proper course of action for the petitioner is only to ventilate their grievance before the civil court and thereafter, it may be open to the petitioner to come up again.

With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is also dismissed.