Disposed

M. Arumuganainar, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC20 Apr 2015WP(MD)/5946/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 226 seeking writ of Mandamus to direct Revenue Department to dispose of a revision petition, considering prior objections and remanding the matter for hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed first respondent to consider and dispose of the revision petition on merits within three months after affording petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

M. Arumuganainar, Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.04.2015 Coram

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.5946 of 2015

¶5

M.Arumuganainar :Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Cennai-600 009.

¶8

2.The Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

¶9

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. : Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to pass orders in the Revision Petition filed on 23.01.2015 against the order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.4(4) Ser/18794/2014 dated 24.12.2014 by taking in to consideration the objection filed by the Association on 11.05.2005 and the reminder dated 28.06.2011 and also the order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.05.2014 within a time stipulated.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Perumal

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganandam

¶13

Addl.Govt.Pleader takes notice

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to pass orders in the Revision Petition filed on 23.01.2015 against the order of the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.4(4) Ser/18794/2014 dated 24.12.2014 by taking in to consideration the objection filed by the Association on 11.05.2005 and the reminder dated 28.06.2011 and also the order of the 2nd respondent dated 08.05.2014.

¶16

2.Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Government Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice, if the revision petition of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

¶19

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any

¶20

opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the first respondent is directed to consider the revision petition, if the revision petition is not disposed of as on date and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed on merits based on the available records after recording the absence of the Party/Parties.

¶21

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(AE) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar TO 1.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Cennai-600 009. 2.The Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. +1cc to Mr.V.Perumal, Advocate, SR.No.19960 W.P.(MD)No.5946 of 2015 20.04.2015 gsr PA/08.05.2015/2P/5C

¶22

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

M. Arumuganainar, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Arumuganainar, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Samuel Sunil Dhass Vs the Director of Fisheries

R.Anbarasan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

M.Pandian, S/O Murugayyan, Vs the Senior Regional Manager

R. Reena Rose, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

E. Ramakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.S. Krishnamoorthy Vs the Principal Secretary to