Disposed

C.Sankaranarayan @ Shankar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Mar 2016WP/10251/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted a direction to the second respondent to consider petitioner's representations dated between 2007 and 2016, afford a hearing, and pass a reasoned order on merits within six weeks without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider petitioner's representations, afford a hearing, and pass a reasoned order on merits within six weeks.

C.Sankaranarayan @ Shankar Vs The Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.10251 of 2016

¶6

C.Sankarannarayanan @ Shankar Chandran, S/o. Mr.S.Chandran,

¶7

122, Hoffman Avenue,

¶8

San Francisco,

¶9

California 94114, USA

¶10

Rep. by his father & POA

¶11

Mr. S.Chandran, Chennai – 600 034. ... Petitioner

¶12

Versus 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003

¶13

The Asst. Revenue Officer,

¶14

Revenue Department,

¶15

Zonal Office-IV Corporation of Chennai,

¶16

No.1, Lake Area, 4^th Cross street, Nungambakkam,

¶17

Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondents

¶18

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 22.02.2007, 13.05.2008, 10.03.2011 and 01.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner to the respondents after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on merits in accordance with law.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. M.A.Abdul Wahab

¶20

for M/s.K.V.Subramanian Asso.

¶21

For Respondents :Mr.G.Anantha Rangan, Standing Counsel for respondents

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 22.02.2007, 13.05.2008, 10.03.2011 and 01.03.2016 and pass orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶24

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

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of his representations dated 22.02.2007, 13.05.2008, 10.03.2011 and 01.03.2016, the respondents have not passed any orders in the representations filed by the petitioner.

¶26

Mr.G.Anantha Rangan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, taking notice for the respondents, submitted that the respondents may be directed to pass orders on the representations referred above within the stipulated time in accordance with law.

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 22.02.2007, 13.05.2008, 10.03.2011 and 01.03.2016 and pass orders on merits in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶29

of. No costs. mrp s/d-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶31

To 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003

¶32

The Asst. Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Zonal Office-IV Corporation of Chennai, No.1, Lake Area, 4^th Cross street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶33

- 1 cc to Mr.K.V.Subramaian, Advocate, SR 18261 + 1 cc to Mr.G.Anantharangan, Advocate, SR 18034 vd(co) prk31/3 W.P.No.10251 of 2016

¶34

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

C.Sankaranarayan @ Shankar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sankaranarayan @ Shankar v. The Commissioner

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

R.Sundarrajan Vs The Regional Transport Officer

M.Sivakumar, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

G.Chidambaranathan Vs The Transport Commissioner

M/s.Aar Kay Plastics, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Vivek Anand, Vs State Rep by Inspector of

M/s.IG3 Infra Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of