Disposed

S. Rajarathinam, v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Mar 2015WP(MD)/15934/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandatory direction for the Tahsildar to issue a community certificate to the petitioner's son based on another son's certificate. The court issued a time-bound direction for the respondent to consider the representation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

S. Rajarathinam, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.15934 of 2014

¶6

S.Rajarathinam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Theni District.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk office, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's son namely, Harisivan based on community stated in the Community certificate of the petitioner's another son namely Kirubananthan within a time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.N.Manoharan, Spl.G.P.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of this Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J.)

¶15

The Writ petition has been filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Tahsildar, Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District, the second respondent herein to issue community certificate to the petitioner's son namely, Harisivan based on the community certificate of the petitioner's another son namely Kirubananthan within a time frame.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the representation dated 05.09.2014 wherein the petitioner has stated that he belongs to Hindu Thozhuva Naickar Community of Most Backward Class and he is in need of community certificates in favour of his son Harisivan based on the community certificate in favour of his another son Kirubananthan.

¶18

4.Having gone through the averments made in the accompanying https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ affidavit and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we find it just and reasonable to direct the second

¶19

¶20

respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders according to law.

¶21

5.In the result, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 05.09.2014 after conducting enquiry pass appropriate orders according to law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

6.The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(AE)

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Theni District.

¶28

2.The Tahsildar,

¶29

Taluk office,

¶30

Bodinayakanur Taluk, Theni District.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar,Advocate, SR.No.11518

¶32

+1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.21088

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.15934 of 2014

10.03.2015

nbj

PA/05.05.2015/2P/5C

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

S. Rajarathinam, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Rajarathinam, v. the District Collector

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

N. Rajendran, S/O. Nataraj, Vs the District Collector

The District Appropriate Vs Dr.Ar.Santhini

Neervala Pathukappu Matrum Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

L.Jagannathan, Vs the District Collector

K. Vairam, Vs the District Collector

V.Parvathy Velpandian Vs the District Collector