Disposed

M.Arumugam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Jul 2011WP(MD)/7614/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in this writ petition, directed the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, to dispose of an appeal filed on 29.01.2009 within eight weeks or inform the petitioner if the appeal is already disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the appeal filed on 29.01.2009 within eight weeks or intimate the petitioner if already disposed of.

M.Arumugam, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.07.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.7614 of 2011

¶7

M.Arumugam .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2011 and consequently direct the second respondent to expedite the enquiry.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthilkumar

¶13

For Respondents : Mr. M.Govindan Special Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2011 and consequently, direct the second respondent to expedite the appeal said to have been filed before the second respondent on 29.01.2009.

¶16

Heard Mr.R.Senthilkukmar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the designation of the second respondent has been wrongly typed as Revenue Divisional Officer instead of the District Revenue Officer.

¶19

The learned Special Government Pleader states that a direction may be issued if the appeal has not been disposed of already.

¶20

In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, is directed to dispose of the appeal said to be filed on 29.01.2009 within reasonable time preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already disposed of, on merits. It is made clear that this Court does not express any

¶21

¶22

opinion about the merits of the petitioner's claim and the Authority shall dispose the same on its own merits. If no appeal is pending as stated above by the petitioner, the authority shall duly intimate to the person concerned.

¶23

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

No costs.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶26

/TRUE COPY/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

The District Collector, Madurai District,Madurai.

¶30

The District Revenue Officer, Madurai.

¶31

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.

¶32

+1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.22612

¶33

W.P(MD)No.7614 of 2011 11.07.2011

¶34

ssl

¶35

PA/25.07.2011/2P/5C

¶36

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

M.Arumugam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Arumugam, 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

R.P.Ramachanthiran, Vs the Chairman

P.Muthuralingam Vs the Superintendent

Sivagami Vs the District Collector

Aruna Jaganathan, Vs the Passport Officer

Mahamuni Vs the District Collector

Aattu Thol Urikkum Vs the Commissioner