Remanded

P.Appusamy, v. The Director of Town Panchayat

Madras HC17 Dec 2015WP/39854/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing a writ petition under Article 226, the court directed the respondent Director to consider pending reports regarding the President of the Town Panchayat and pass appropriate orders within four months after notice to all concerned.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the report, pass orders on merits after notice, and decide within four months.

P.Appusamy, Vs The Director of Town Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.12.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.39854 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015

¶6

P.Appusamy ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs 1.The Director of Town Panchayat Kuralagam, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Collectorate, Erode Dist. 3.T.Senthil Kumar ...Respondents

¶8

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take necessary action against the third respondent on the basis of the report submitted by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.4865/ 2015/P3 dated 11.8.2015.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SGP ORDER

¶10

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the nature of relief to be granted, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal without ordering notice to the third respondent.

¶11

The petitioner, who is a resident of Ammapettai Town Panchayat, has filed the above writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the report of the second respondent dated 11.8.2015 and pass appropriate orders.

¶12

The allegation is against the third respondent, who is the president of the town panchayat. However, since the writ petition is being disposed of without notice to the third respondent, the merits of the allegations made against the third respondent are not gone into.

¶13

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

¶14

If the second respondent has already submitted a report to the first respondent, it would be appropriate for the first respondent to consider the same and proceed in accordance with law and the matter should not be kept in cold storage. In this regard, the petitioner already made a representation to the first respondent on 19.10.2015. But, nothing has transpired. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

In the light of the above, without going into the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner against the third respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.10.2015 on merits, take note of the report of the second respondent dated 11.8.2015 and after notice to all concerned including the petitioner and the third respondent, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the above MP is closed.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
1.The Director of Town Panchayat,
Kuralagam, Chennai.
2.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat,
Collectorate, Erode District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.Government Pleader Sr.68309
WP.No.39854 of 2015
and MP.No.1 of 2015
NM(CO)
EU 12.1.16

¶17

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

P.Appusamy, v. The Director of Town Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Appusamy, v. The Director of Town Panchayat

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

Vs

The Management of Vs The Presiding Officer

The Special Officer Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

P.Poochamy Vs The District Collector

Tmt.Deivamaniganapathy, Vs The Secretary

E.S.Santhamani Vs The Land Commissioner