Allowed

V. Ramalingam v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Feb 2011WP/2104/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in Writ Petition No. 2104 of 2011, directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 30.10.2010 within four weeks if not already done, clarifying that no expression on the claim was passed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of the representation dated 30.10.2010 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

V. Ramalingam Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 1.2.2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

Writ Petition No.2104 of 2011

¶6

1.V.Ramalingam, 2.P.V.Parthasarathy, 3.Mrs.V.Kalaimagal, 4.Mrs.V.Vijaya Sundari, 5.Mrs.V.Amudavalli. ... Petitioners -Vs.1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Chennai. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), City Works, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶7

3.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, B-Canal Division, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose the representation dated 30.10.2010 and the reminder dated 27.11.2010.

¶9

For petitioners : Mr.N.Muralikumaran,

¶10

for M/s.Mcgan Law Firm For respondents : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Special Government Pleader.

¶11

¶12

Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose the representation dated 30.10.2010 and the reminder dated 27.11.2010.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner has been set out in the legal notice/representation dated 30.10.2010. The nature of grievance is highlighted in paragraph 9 of the said notice/representation.

¶16

Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states that the authority will consider the legal notice/representation in accordance with law and dispose of the same within a time frame by this Court, if not already disposed of.

¶17

Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, the respondents are directed to consider the legal notice/representation dated 30.10.2010 in accordance with law and dispose the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same is not already disposed of. It is made clear that the court has not expressed anything on the claim of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is ordered of as above. No costs. ts Sd/Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Chennai. 2.The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), City Works, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

3.The Executive Engineer,

¶20

Public Works Department, B-Canal Division, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶21

- 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR No.7836

¶22

- 1 cc to M/s. Megan Law Firm, Advocate SR No.7513

¶23

MDR(CO)
SR/17.2.2011
Order in
W.P.No.2104 of 2011

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V. Ramalingam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Ramalingam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joyce Arockia Mary, Vs the Managing Director

Thirupur Municipality Shop Vs the Commissioner

S Duraiarasan Vs the Director of School

Thiruvalluvar Textiles (P) Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

S. Udaya Kumar Vs the Assistant Engineer

J. Ramachandrn Vs Government of Tamilnadu