Dismissed

M.Murugavel, v. The District Collector

Madras HC22 Jun 2016WP/19935/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 as withdrawn by the petitioner. The court granted liberty to approach the court again if the ninth respondent fails to act upon a purported assurance given to the petitioner regarding his continued employment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court again if the ninth respondent fails to act on the purported assurance.

M.Murugavel, Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:22.06.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

W.P.No.19935 of 2016

¶6

T.MURUGAVEL ..PETITIONER
Vs.
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
7. THE ROAD INSPECTOR
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.
8. THE OVERSEER
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

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

¶8

V.ASHOKAN THE PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT KALLUR PANCHAYAT KALLAKATTUR POST, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

PRAYER:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 1^st to 8^th Respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.05.2016 and consequently dispose of the representation within the time frame.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.VENUGOPAL

¶12

For R-1 to R-5 : Mr.Rm.Muthukumar, Govt. Advocate.

¶13

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 9^th respondent has give assurance to the petitioner that he would be allowed to continue his work and in case if the 9^th respondent does not act upon as per his promise, he seeks leave of this Court to approach this Court on that occasion.

¶14

With the above representation, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶15

It is not clear as to whether the 9^th respondent has made such a promise or not. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the so called assurance is not acted upon by the 9^th respondent, then the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court.

¶16

In view of the representation and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty. No costs.

rgr

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

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

¶22

¶23

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 7. THE ROAD INSPECTOR BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. 8. THE OVERSEER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICE SIRUKAVERIPAKKAM KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. + 1 cc to Mr.R.VENUGOPAL, Advocate Sr 35450 KR/4/7/16 W.P.No.19935 of 2016

¶24

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

M.Murugavel, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugavel, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Bhuvanesh Vs The Commissioner

S.Venugopal Vs The Chief Manager

T.Ramalingam Vs The Special Commissioner

T.R.K.Textile (India) Private Vs The Chairman

D.Ashwath Vs The Commissioner

R.Abdul Latheef Vs The Chairman