Disposed

A.Pari v. the Agricultural Production

Madras HC7 Jul 2015WP(MD)/11420/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order, filed under Article 226, directed the Agricultural Production Commissioner to dispose of interest sanction proposals for the petitioner within four months after a hearing, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the First Respondent to dispose of the interest sanction proposal within four months of receipt of this order, after hearing the petitioner.

A.Pari Vs the Agricultural Production — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.07.2015

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.11420 of 2015

A.Pari

:Petitioner

vs.

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. : Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent I.e., Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai, to pass appropriate orders on the proposals sent by the Director of Agriculture, Chennai in his letter No. MxV.1/130007/14, dated 22.01.2015 regarding sanction of interest, as per Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondents :Mr.R.Velmurugan, GA

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The prayer in the Writ Petition is a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent i.e., Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai, to pass appropriate orders on the proposals sent by the Director of Agriculture, Chennai, in his letter No. MxVf.1/130007/14, dated 22.01.2015, regarding sanction of interest, as per Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.

¶16

2.Mr.R.Velmurugan, the learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

3.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the proposal sent by the Director of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Agriculture, Chennai, in his letter No.MxV.1/130007/14, dated 22.01.2015, regarding sanction of interest, as per Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules is disposed of, on merits.

¶18

¶19

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the 1^st respondent is directed to dispose of the proposal sent by the Director of Agriculture, Chennai, in his letter No.MxV.1/130007/14, dated 22.01.2015, regarding sanction of interest, as per Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, if not already disposed of, and pass appropriate orders on the same and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶20

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

sd/Assistant Registrar (crl.Side)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

mpk

¶25

¶26

1.The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture (AA-2) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶27

2.The Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. +One CC M/S S.Visvalingam Advocate SR.No.36474

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.11420 of 2015 Dated :07.07.2015

¶29

GJM - 24.07.2015 2P/4C

¶30

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

A.Pari v. the Agricultural Production

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Pari v. the Agricultural Production

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

Mallika Vs the District Collector

S.Amuthavalli Vs the Director of Panchayats

Managing Trustee Cum Vs Manonmaniam Sundaranar

S. Vijayameena, Vs the Revenue Divisional

Keins College of Education Vs the National Council for

Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Vs the State of Tamilnadu