Allowed

R.Srikumar v. The Madras University

Madras HC9 Feb 2015WP/31615/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Madras University to publish an enquiry report promptly. The court directed the University to conclude proceedings expeditiously, within three months, after constituting a new committee following the retirement of previous members.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

R.Srikumar Vs The Madras University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated:09.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN

¶5

W.P.No. 31615 of 2014

¶6

R.Srikumar .. Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Madras University rep.by its Registrar Chepauk, Chennai -5 .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to publish the Enquiry Report on the basis of the Official Communication No.Ph.D/2012/8446 dated 08.8.2012 after finalization of the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr. R.Vijayakumar Standing Counsel O R D E R

¶12

The respondent constituted a Committee to enquire into the complaint preferred by the petitioner. The present prayer is to direct the respondent to conclude the entire proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

When this writ petition was taken up for consideration on 05.2.2015, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University, on instructions, submitted that the University was constrained to change the enquiry officer on account of the subsequent event relating to the retirement of the Committee Members. According to the University, action would be taken as expeditiously as possible to constitute another enquiry Committee and dispose of the matter.

¶14

When the writ petition is taken up for consideration today, the learned Standing Counsel by producing the copy of the communication dated 09.2.2015, submitted that the University has already constituted a Committee consisting of Dr.N.Balu as Convenor

¶15

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

¶16

and Dr.R.Rengasamy as Member and every effort would be taken to dispose of the matter. The learned Standing Counsel seeks three months time to dispose of the matter.

¶17

The respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ga
To
The Registrar
The Madras University
Chepauk, Chennai -5.
1 cc to Mr. S.Doraisamy,Advocate, SR.No.6862
1 cc to Mr. R.Vijayakumar,Advocate, SR.No.6868
1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar ,Advocate, SR.No.6823
W.P.No. 31615 of 2014
UG(CO)
PMK.17.2.2015

¶19

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

R.Srikumar v. The Madras University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Srikumar v. The Madras University

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

V.Mohanraj, Vs The Deputy Inspector General

P.Sathish Kumar Vs The Principal Director

A.Sivakumar Vs the Registrar of Co-Op.

S.Arumugam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

L.Dominic Xavier, NO.89, Vs Director of School Education

T.Chitra, Vs the Commissioner