Disposed

Mrs.R.Kasthuri Rajaramani, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC20 Dec 2016WP/43707/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court directed the Housing Board and State Government to consider a petitioner's representation regarding the change of name in a housing allotment, having granted her a personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders within three months without delving into the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner's representation on merits and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Mrs.R.Kasthuri Rajaramani, Vs The Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.12.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.43707 of 2016

¶6

R.Kasthuri Rajaramani ... Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, rep. by its Secretary, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶10

The Executive Engineer and Administrative
Officer,
Coimbatore Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,
Coimbatore - 642 012. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.06.2015 and pass necessary orders after granting the petitioner a personal hearing within a stipulated period.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghupathi For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Rajeswaran, Special Government Pleader For Respondents 2 and 3 : Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, Additional Government Pleader

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Seeking a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider her representation dated 08.06.2015, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.

¶16

According to the petitioner, originally, one Mr.M.R.Abdul Wahab was allotted Plot No.L-78 in Udumalpet Scheme and by paying the entire sale consideration, she purchased the said house from the said allottee vide registered sale deed dated 11.11.1994 in Doc.No.3701/94 SRO, Udumalaipettai. Since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said house.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that till date, the respondents have not changed the name of the allottee from the name of M.R.Abdul Wahab to his name, despite payment of entire costs and several representations. Hence, having no other alternative, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

aeb

¶26

To:

¶27

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶28

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

¶29

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

¶30

The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office, Coimbatore - 642 012.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.V. Anandhamoorthy, Advocate, S.R.No.74513
rj(CO)
md(31/01/2017)
W.P.No.43707 of 2016

¶32

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

Mrs.R.Kasthuri Rajaramani, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.R.Kasthuri Rajaramani, v. The Secretary to Government

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

A.G.Palanisamy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

R.P.Shakkthi @ Sathish Vs The Inspector General of

I.Madasamy Vs The Secretary to Government

K.Venkatakrishnan, Vs The Estate Officer

G.Desingu, Vs The Estate Officer

R.Ranganathan, Vs The Chief Manager