Disposed

V.Vasanthakumar v. The Secretary

Madras HC14 Sept 2016WP/29147/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition praying for a mandamus to direct state authorities to implement Salem Advocate Bar Association directions regarding court infrastructure by engaging with the Central Government regarding financial assistance for new construction.

What did the court decide?

State Government directed to approach Central Government for assistance on court infrastructure; parties to bear own costs.

V.Vasanthakumar Vs The Secretary — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 14.09.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.No.29147 of 2014

¶7

V.Vasanthakumar ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Department of Justice,
Ministry of Law and Justice
New Delhi 110001.

¶8

2.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Home (Cts) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 3.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104.

¶9

4.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Law Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. (R.1, R.2 and R.4 amended as per order dated 25.06.2015 by SKK CJ and TSSJ in W.P.No.29147 of 2014)

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to dispose f the representation of the petitioner dated 03.07.2014 insofar as to comply by implementing the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India reported in 2005(6) SCC 344, in accordance with law within a specified time.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner ::: Mr.V.Vasanthakumar

¶14

Party-in-Person For Respondents::: Mr.M.K.Subramanian

¶15

Government Pleader for R.2 and R.4 Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisti for R.3 Mr.Su.Srinivasan ASGOI for R.1

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶18

The affidavit filed by the State Government shows that the Utilization Certificate for Rs.50 Crores made available for the financial year 2016-2017 has already been sent. The State Government contributed a share of 33.34 Crores and thus the Utilization Certificate is for a sum of Rs.83.34 Crores. It is also stated that action plan for Rs.107.14 Crores for construction of Combined Court Buildings and Quarters is given as per Annexure-II.

¶19

The State Government may take up the issue with the Central Government as to what best assistance can be given by the Central Government keeping in mind the requirement for new infrastructure and upgradation required on account of the fact that the court infrastructure established decades ago has become insufficient to deal with the current number of cases.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice New Delhi 110001.

¶26

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

¶27

The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Cts) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶28

3.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104.

¶29

4.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.V.Vasanthakumar, Party in person, Advocate sr.52191 +1cc to Mrs.S.Haja Mohideen Gisti, Advocate sr.52314 +1cc to Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Advocate Sr.51990

¶31

W.P.No.29147 of 2014

¶32

kji[co] srg 22/09/2016

¶33

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

V.Vasanthakumar v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Vasanthakumar v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. Vs Arokya Food Products

K.Rajammal Vs The State of Tamilnadu

The General Manager Vs Canteen Workers of Bhel

Prakashchand Jain, Vs Mr.Hukmichand Jain

Mr. Vijay Pai Vs Max Trade Limited

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.S.Subramaniam