Disposed

S.Kumar, v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Oct 2014WP/23392/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 23392 of 2014, the Madras High Court directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding a Community Certificate application within eight weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 17.1.2014 and dispose of it on merits within eight weeks after giving an opportunity.

S.Kumar, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 14.10.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN and The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice ARUNA JAGADEESAN Writ Petition No.23392 of 2014

¶5

S.Kumar .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector
Vellore District Collector Office
Vellore District
2. The Revenue Division Officer
Ranipettai, Vellore District
3. The Tahsildar
Arakonam, Vellore District .. Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to issue S.T.Kattu Naicken Community Certificate to petitioner's son viz., Vignesh and daughter Sophia regarding petitioner representation dated 29.9.2013, 17.1.2014 and 24.5.2014 in this writ petition.

¶7

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

¶8

At this stage of the hearing of the Writ Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it

¶9

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

¶10

would suffice, if a direction is issued to the second respondent to pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.1.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame specified by this Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 has no objection for this Court passing such an order.

¶11

In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.1.2014, if it is otherwise in order, and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the representation, dated 17.1.2014, to the second respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶12

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
lan
To:
1. The District Collector
Vellore District Collector Office
Vellore District
2. The Revenue Division Officer
Ranipettai, Vellore District
3. The Tahsildar
Arakonam, Vellore District
1 cc to Mr.P.Murali ,Advocate, SR.No.49699
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No49072
Writ Petition No.23392 of 2014
rsk(co)
pmk.27.10.2014

¶13

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

S.Kumar, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kumar, 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

M/S Suprasesh General Vs the Commissioner of Service

S.Munuswamy Vs The District Collector

R.Shanmugam Vs The Revenue Divisional

V.P.Pandurangan Vs The Revenue Divisional

S.Dakshinamoorthy Vs The Revenue Divsional

J.Babu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer