Disposed

S.Patteswari, v. The Chief Secretary

Madras HC4 Jan 2016WP/40704/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compensation for her husband's death allegedly caused by poisonous gas from a lorry belonging to the third respondent. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the pending representation and pass orders after a hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider the representation, afford hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

S.Patteswari, Vs The Chief Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.01.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

W.P.No.40704 of 2015

S.Patteswari

... Petitioner

Vs.
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai,
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 5.11.2015 and subsequently directing the 3^rd respondent to pay petitioner a sum of rs.10 lakhs as compensation as per order of Supreme Court of India Judgment pronounced in Contempt Petition (C) No.132 of 2012 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.583 of 2003 'Safai Karamchari Andolan & Others Versus Union of India & Others'.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.E.D.Sethupathi For Respondents 1&2 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi,Govt.Advocate Mr.D.Krishnakumar,Spl.Govt.Pleader for R.3 O R D E R

¶11

Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.D.Krishnakumar, Special Government Pleader takes notice for respondent No.3.

¶12

A perusal of records would show that the petitioner made a representation on 5.11.2015 stating that her husband died on 18.1.2015 due to the poisonous gas allegedly emanated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from the lorry belonging to the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the

¶13

petitioner has sought for compensation from the respondents. As the said request is still pending consideration, the present writ petition is filed. In support of the case of petitioner, learned counsel has made reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court dated 27.3.2014 in Contempt Petition (C) No.132 of 2012 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.583 of 2003 'Safai Karamchari Andolan & Others Versus Union of India & Others'.

¶14

Taking note of the pendency of the request/representation dated 5.11.2015 made by the petitioner with the respondents 2 and 3, the said authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of coy of this order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶15

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Cs-V)
/TRUE COPY/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
usk
To
1. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George, Chennai,
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore,
Coimbatore District.
3. The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore.
+1 CC to MR.E.D.Sethupathi Advocate. SR.NO. 60
+1 CC to Govt.Pleader. SR.NO. 251
W.P.No.40704 of 2015
CO-PUR
JD 11/01/2016

¶16

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

S.Patteswari, v. The Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Patteswari, v. The Chief 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

Vs

R.Murugesan Vs Ramya @ Theyvanai

G.Akshasya, Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Chitra Vs Vibu Nair IAS

R.Murugan Vs G.Paulraj

P.Thangavel Vs Manikandan