Partly allowed

M.Ranjith Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP/31515/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought direction to the corporation to consider his representation regarding a job allotment dispute. The court disposed of the petition by directing the second respondent to consider the representation on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2014 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

M.Ranjith Kumar, Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.31515 OF 2014

M.Ranjith Kumar

...Petitioner

1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore.

¶10

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, North Zone, Coimbatore. ...Respondents

¶11

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2014.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Saranraj

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.K.Magesh

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation for allotment of job.

¶16

Heard Mr.A.Saranraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.K. Magesh, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶17

The petitioner claims that he is a licensed plumber working under the first respondent. On 3.1.2014, when he attempted to attend a job allotted by the respondent Corporation for water and sewerage connection, the petitioner was told that the work has already been completed. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the job is carried out by an unauthorised plumber, the petitioner will tend to lose his job and money. Expressing his grievance, the petitioner sent a representation dated 12.11.2014 to the second respondent. Since it did not evoke any response, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

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

¶19

Considering the limited nature of the prayer sought and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider his representation dated 12.11.2014 on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore.
2.The Assistant Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation, North Zone,
Coimbatore.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Magesh, Advocate Sr.58298
+ 1 cc to Mr.A.Saran raj, Advocate Sr.59135
WP.No.31515 of 2014
CNR(CO)
Eu 16.12.14

¶21

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

M.Ranjith Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ranjith Kumar, v. The Commissioner

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.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Irudaya Rani Vs the Area Officer

G.Arunprasad, Vs the Secretary

M.Aamira Fathima, Vs The Annamalai University

T.Elangovan Vs The Director

K.Rajaram Vs The Collector