Disposed

Mrs.Neelambal Sathyakumar, v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

Madras HC20 Apr 2015WP/8182/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, on the consent of parties, disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order and directed the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner's request after considering a pending representation.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authority is directed to reconsider the petitioner's request after reviewing the pending representation, preferably within four weeks.

Mrs.Neelambal Sathyakumar, Vs the State of Tamil… — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.04.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P.No. 8182 of 2014 and M.P. No.1 of 2014

¶7

Mrs. Neelambal Sathyakumar .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.9. 2. The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee rep. By the Chairman, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶9

The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents

¶10

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the second respondent's proceedings culminating in order dated 03.10.2013, to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reconsider the claim/request of the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner: Ms. N.R. Jasmine Padma

¶12

For Respondents: Mr. P. Sanjay Gandhi Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.)

¶14

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

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

¶16

2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the second respondent, certain relevant information has not been considered and as such, the petitioner has pointed out the same by her representation dated 27.11.2013. Thus, the impugned order dated 03.10.2013 requires re-consideration in the light of the objections raised by the petitioner.

¶17

3 Mr. Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent submits that if the petitioner's representation is pending consideration, the same will be considered again, in the light of the observations and directions issued in Lakshmi Matriculation School, represented by the Secretary, Lakshmi Vidya Sangham vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai – 9 and 2 others¹ , as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is advisable that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to put forward her case properly before the authorities again.

¶18

4 The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No
costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ra
To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.9.

¶19

The Private Schools Fee Determination Committee rep. By the Chairman, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

¶20

The Director of Matriculation Schools, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. + 1 cc to M/s. L. Chandrakumar, Advocate Sr.21436 + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.21381

¶21

W.P.No. 8182 of 2014

¶22

CA(CO) Eu 05.05.2015 1 2012 WLR 489

¶23

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

Mrs.Neelambal Sathyakumar, v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Neelambal Sathyakumar, v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.

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

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. Vs a.Velayutham

J.Venugopal, Vs The Secretary to Government

The Inspector General Vs a.M.Murugan

A.Moolraj Singhvi Vs State of Tamilnadu

C.Baskar Vs Dewan Housing Finance

The Chairman, Vs M/s. The Tuticorin Spinning