Disposed

Dr. M.Navin Kumar, v. the Director

Madras HC1 Sept 2016WP/21716/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition noting no objection from the respondents and directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation concerning bond refund on merits within eight weeks with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding bond refund on merits within eight weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Dr. M.Navin Kumar, Vs the Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:01.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

W.P.No.21716 of 2013

¶6

Dr.M.Navin Kumar ..Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Director Directorate of Medical Education Tamil Nadu Medical Service Government of Tamil Nadu Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 2. The Dean Government Kilpauk Medical College Chennai. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the bond amount of Rs.10 lakhs paid by the petitioner in favour of the respondents.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ferozkhan For Respondents : Mr.K.Dhananjayan Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶11

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents.

¶12

2.This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the respondents, to refund the bond amount of Rs.10 lakhs paid by the petitioner, in favour of the respondents.

¶13

3.Though various grounds have been raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 15.05.2013, submitted by the petitioner, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

¶14

4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection for such an order being https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by this Court.

¶15

5.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the second respondent, is directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 15.05.2013, regarding the refund of the bond amount, paid by the petitioner, in favour of the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of his representation to the second respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶16

6.This writ petition is disposed of, with the above
direction. No costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Director
Directorate of Medical Education
Tamil Nadu Medical Service
Government of Tamil Nadu
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
2. The Dean
Government Kilpauk Medical College
Chennai.
+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.50193
ug(co)
krd 21/9
W.P.No.21716 of 2013

¶17

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

Dr. M.Navin Kumar, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. M.Navin Kumar, v. the Director

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

M.P.Veerasamy Vs M/S.Nuclear Power Corpn.

M/S.Sadhana Aqua Industries Vs Deputy Director

Mrs.Mumtaj, Present Caretaker Vs the Director General of

Chennu Guru Prasad Vs The Commissioner

Dr. Meettu Mathew, Vs the Director

Dr.Limy Jose, Vs the Director