Disposed

D.S.Ramesh v. The Chief General Manager

Madras HC8 Sept 2016WP/27321/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking a direction to BSNL to consider his representation concerning a non-functioning telephone connection and lack of response within a reasonable time. The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2016 and pass appropriate orders on merits.

D.S.Ramesh Vs The Chief General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.09.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.27321 of 2016

¶6

D.S.Ramesh .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1 The Chief General Manager Chennai Telephones (BSNL) No.78 Purasaiwalkam High Road Purasaiwalkam Chennai-10. 2 The General Manager BSNL Thiruvallur Circle No.1 Ganga Nagar Kodambakkam High Road Chennai-24. 3 The Divisional Engineer O/o.Telephone Exchange (BSNL) Tiruvallur 4 The Assistant Engineer O/o.The Perambakkam Telephone Exchange BSNL Perambakkam

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent either to consider petitioner's representation dated 05.07.2016 within a reasonable time.

¶10

The petitioner has got a BSNL Telephone connection in his native place at Kumarachery, Village, Thiruvallur Taluk. According to him for the last 7 months, there was no telephone connection and the petitioner had spent more than 1 lakh to

¶11

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

¶12

install CCTV cameral and also got Static IP from the 3rd respondent. Hence, he sent a representation dated 05.07.2016 to all the respondents. But, till date, there was no response and hence, the Writ Petition has been filed.

¶13

The learned Government Pleader(Pondy) submitted that already the respondents had intimated that wiring cannot be replaced and bills are generated only for the existence of the phone.

¶14

Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, directs the respondents, to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 05.07.2016, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner.

¶15

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kua
To
1 The Chief General Manager
Chennai Telephones (BSNL) No.78
Purasaiwalkam High Road Purasaiwalkam
Chennai-10.
2 The General Manager BSNL
Thiruvallur Circle No.1 Ganga Nagar
Kodambakkam High Road Chennai-24.
3 The Divisional Engineer
O/o.Telephone Exchange (BSNL) Tiruvallur
4 The Assistant Engineer
O/o.The Perambakkam Telephone Exchange BSNL
Perambakkam

¶16

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

¶17

+1 cc to M/s.Govidaraj Advocate vide sr 51770 +1 cc to M/s.B.Rama Advocate vide sr 51348

¶18

Writ Petition No.27321 of 2016

¶19

aa26/09/2016

¶20

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

D.S.Ramesh v. The Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.S.Ramesh v. The Chief General Manager

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

A.Jayaraman Vs the Inspector of Police

Palayyan Vs the Secretary to Government

M.G.Gopal, Vs The Revenue Secretary

R.Saravanakumar Vs The Assistant General Manager

S.Malar, Vs The Commissioner

Kresh Thyagaraj, Vs The Passport Officer