Dismissed

The Government of Tamilnadu, v. v.Arun

Madras HC13 Jan 2015REV.APLW/265/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judicial review of an order dismissed a review application filed by the Government against a previous order directing them to settle fee bills. The Court held no review was necessary and directed the Review Applicant to consider the petitioner's representation and settle pending bills.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; Review Applicant directed to settle fee bills and provide reasons within four weeks.

The Government of Tamilnadu, Vs v.Arun — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATE: 13.01.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

REVIEW APPLICATION (WRIT) NO.265 OF 2014 IN W.P.NO. 3587 OF 2013

¶7

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Public Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. ..Review Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

V.Arun .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer: This Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC, praying to review the order, dated 3.7.2014 made in W.P.No.2086 of 2013.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Rajendra Prasad, GA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

By order, dated 3.7.2014, this Court allowed the above said writ

¶14

petition in W.P.No.2086 of 2013, with the following direction:

¶15

¶16

“3. Taking note of the submission made on the side of the petitioner and after hearing the Government Advocate, this Court directs the respondent to consider and dispose of the fee bills submitted by the petitioner along with his representation dated 15.11.2012. If bills have been raised in accordance with Fee Schedule prescribed by the Government, necessary action should be taken to pay the fees as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶17

The learned Government Advocate appearing for review

¶18

applicant would submit that the review applicant is not the proper person to settle the fee bills of the writ petitioner and no fee bills were pending with the applicant and that the bills have to be settled by the respective departments which had engaged the writ petitioner and availed his services. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that it is not practically possible to settle the fee bills since in his letter dated 15.11.2012, the writ petitioner has not given any case particulars and also the details on whose behalf of he appeared. With these submissions, the learned Government Advocate sought for reviewing the order, dated 3.7.2014.

¶19

In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate and the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that there

¶20

is no need to review the order and it is for the review applicant, to

¶21

¶22

consider the representation dated 15.11.2012 of the petitioner and pass orders therein within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by settling the fee bills if any pending with it and also by giving reasons under which, the applicant is unable to make payment of the fee bills of the petitioner, so that the petitioner can work out his remedy thereafter.

¶23

Accordingly, this Review Application along with connected MP No.1 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs.

Suk 13.01.2015

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

suk

REVIEW APPLICATION (WRIT) NO.265 OF 2014 IN W.P.NO. 3587 OF 2013

¶29

13.1.2015

The Government of Tamilnadu, v. v.Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Tamilnadu, v. v.Arun

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

K.Mohan, Vs The Chairman

M.Kannosi, S/O Mani, Vs the Supdt. of Police

Thevar Pitchai, Vs the Inspector of Police

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Confederation of Real Estate

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu Vs Sr.Jayaseeli

Tvl.Sri Krishna Electrical and Vs The Assistant Commissioner