Disposed

Abdul Wahith, v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Dec 2014WP(MD)/19373/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a senior citizen, sought directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a new ration card due to the loss of his previous card and inaction by the respondents in considering his repeated representations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second and third respondents to consider the petitioner's representations and pass a reasoned order on merits within a period of four weeks.

Abdul Wahith, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.12.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19373 of 2014

¶7

Abdul Wahith ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

The Special Tahsildar, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2014 and 25.09.2014 and to issue new family card in favour of petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.K.Mahesh Raja Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶17

According to the petitioner, he is the senior citizen and has three sons and two daughters and all of them under one roof. He is a coolie labour and his family is a very poor family and his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sons also are doing coolie work.

¶18

¶19

The second respondent had issued a family card in favour of the petitioner for the period from 2005-2009 bearing Family Card No.27/G/0154151. Based on the family card, he and his family members purchased food items from civil supplies and consumer production department. During the month of December 2012, while purchasing raw food items from ration store, his family card bearing aforesaid number was lost by him. In spite of diligent search, the said ration card was not to be traced out.

¶20

He made a representation on 27.02.2013 to the third respondent and requested him to issue new family card in his favour and narrated his illness. The third respondent issued a receipt in his favour and not considered his representation. Further, the third respondent has also not issued a family card in his favour.

¶21

On 25.03.2014, he made a representation to the first respondent on grievance day and it was forwarded to the second respondent by the first respondent on the very same day. The second respondent issued a memo through his proceedings in Omu.J4/21312/13 dated 28.03.2013, stating that the petitioner's petition was forwarded to the third respondent. After that, till today the petitioner approaching the first respondent for obtaining his family card. For the past 1 1/2 years, he and his family members were put to untoward mental hardship and added further, his family is a poor one. Each and every day, he and his family members spent huge money for purchasing rice and other raw materials.

¶22

The petitioner, on 04.05.2014, made a representation to the third respondent in person and requested him to issue new ration card in his favour. On 25.09.2014, he also made another representation to the second respondent in person along with the certificate issued by the store keeper and requested him to issue ration card in his favour. In spite of numerous representations made to the respondents and his officials, till date they have not considered his representations and they have acted in a lethargic manner.

¶23

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in need of a new ration card and also that he has made repeated representations beginning from 27.02.2013, this Court, based on equity, good conscience, fair play and even as a matter of prudence, directs the second and third respondents to consider the first representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2013 together with other representations (including the last representation made by him on 25.09.2014) in a fair, just, objective and dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned, speaking order on merits within a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second and third respondents are to carry out the

¶24

¶25

exercise of passing orders on the representations made by the petitioner, after considering the plight of the petitioner in procuring raw food items from outside after spending enormous sum.

¶26

dis	With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands posed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O.,)
	/True Copy/
	Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.	The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.	The District Supply Officer, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Department, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3.	The Special Tahsildar, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Department, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.
+1c	c to Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari, Advocate, in SR. No.64550/14.
+1c	c to Special Government Pleader, in SR No.64418.
	W.P(MD)No.19373 of 2014 01.12.2014
akv
msm	16.12.2014 p3/6c

¶27

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

Abdul Wahith, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Wahith, 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

B.Ramkumar Athithan Vs the Chairman

R. Murugakumar Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Irulan, Vs the Executive Engineer

Tmt. a. Vijaya Thangam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Nagarajan, Vs the District Supdt. of Police

E.Oochammal, Vs the District Collector