Disposed

K.Rangan v. The Director of Town

Madras HC21 Jul 2016WP/21379/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a Mandamus for inclusion in a seniority list, this Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits expeditiously and disposed of the matter without going into merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation dated 11.4.2016 on merits expeditiously.

K.Rangan Vs The Director of Town — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:21.07.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WP.No.21379 of 2016

¶6

R.Rangan ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Directorate of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chennai-108
2.The District Collector, Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats
Cuddalore Zone, District Collectorate, Villupuram
4.The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office
Gingee, Villupuram District. ..Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 11.4.2016 with regard to inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the state wide seniority list within a time frame.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Elumalai

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.A.Kumar,

¶11

Spl.Govt.Pleader

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st Respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the Petitioner dated 11.4.2016 with regard to inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the state wide seniority list.

¶13

This court heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.

¶14

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

¶15

Considering the limited prayer sought for in this Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 11.4.2016 , on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Srcm

¶17

Sd/Asst. Registrar.

¶18

/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
To:
1.The Director of Town Panchayats,
Directorate of Town Panchayats,
Kuralagam, Chennai-108.
2.The District Collector, Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
3. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats
Cuddalore Zone, District Collectorate, Villupuram.
4. The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office
Gingee, Villupuram District.
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Elumalai, Advocate Sr 41349
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, Sr 41683
KR/3/8/16
WP.No.21379 of 2016

¶19

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

K.Rangan v. The Director of Town

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rangan v. The Director of Town

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

V.Seethalakshmi Vs Government of Tamilnadu Rep.

The Tamilnadu Diploma Vs the Director of Employment

Dr. S.Usha, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Gayathiri, Vs The Director of Collegiate

K.Kasirajan, Vs The Director

The Engineering Association of Vs The State of Tamil Nadu