Disposed

I.Sabeer Mohamed v. the Principal Secretary

Madras HC20 Mar 2015WP(MD)/3986/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandatory direction for the renovation of a damaged public library. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that no action was taken on the petitioner's previous representation. Accordingly, it directed the respondents to consider the petition dated 14.03.2015 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2015 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks from receipt of the order copy.

I.Sabeer Mohamed Vs the Principal Secretary — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.03.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶8

W.P(MD)No.3986 of 2015

I.Sabeer Mohamed

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary,

¶13

Tamil Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George,

¶14

Chennai.

¶15

2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶16

3.The District Library Officer,

¶17

Office of the District Library Officer, Sivagangai District.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to renovate the damaged public Tiruvalluvar library building Paganeri Near Mathagupatti Sivagangai District and provide basic infrastructure to the said public library by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2015 within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian,

¶22

Special Government Pleder.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

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

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

2.It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to renovate the damaged public Tiruvalluvar library building Paganeri near Mathagupatti, Sivagangai District and provide basic infrastructure to the said public library by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2015.

¶27

3.It is seen that the petitioner has sent written representations to the authorities. Since, no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed for the aforestated relief.

¶28

4.Having gone through the accompanying affidavit, material https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ papers and the submissions made by the learned counsel, we find it just and reasonable to direct the respondents to consider the representation

¶29

¶30

of the petitioner dated 14.03.2015 and pass orders on the same.

¶31

5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.03.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶32

Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True copy/

¶33

¶34

1.The Principal Secretary, Tamil Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St., George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Sivagangai District. 3.The District Library Officer, Office of the District Library Officer, Sivagangai District. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No. 13874 sm:06.04.2015:2P/5C W.P(MD)No.3986 of 2015 20.03.2015

¶35

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

I.Sabeer Mohamed v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Sabeer Mohamed v. the Principal Secretary

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

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The General Manager, Vs S.Rajkamal

Murugan Vs the District Collector

Thangavel, Vs the Supdt. of Police

A.Sithan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Palani, Vs the Supdt. of Police