Allowed

O.Gunalan, v. The President

Madras HC22 Mar 2016WP/7919/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to act on a representation concerning the non-execution of a sale deed. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation, pass orders, and inform the petitioner within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, pass orders on merits, and inform the petitioner within three weeks.

O.Gunalan, Vs The President — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 22.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.7919 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.7052 of 2016

¶6

O.Gunalan .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1.The President, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salari, Chennai-600 005. 2.The Commissioner, Arakkonam Corporation, Arakkonam, Vellore District. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the petitioner representation dated 08.10.2015 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Elumalai

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.S.Prabhu for R1

¶11

Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Government Pleader for R2

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard Mr.N.Elumalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Prabhu, learned counsel accepting notice for the first respondent and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, accepting notice for the second respondent. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 08.10.2015 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶15

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

¶16

According to the petitioner, he has paid the cost of the plot sold to him in full. However, sale deed has not been executed. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 08.10.2015. Since no action has been taken on the representation, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶17

Considering the facts of the case, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.10.2015 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and inform the petitioner in writing as to the current stage of the matter, as to why the sale deed has not been executed etc., The above direction shall be complied with by the second respondent within a period of three weeks from the date receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. rpa Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rpa To 1. The President, Tamilnadu Sluk Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai 600 005. 2. The Commissioner, Arakkonam Corporation, Arakkonam, Vellore District. +1 cc to Mr.N.Elumalai,Advocate, sr.18143 +1 cc to S.Prabhu, Advocate, sr.18645

¶19

W.P.No.7919 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.7052 of 2016

¶20

gj co kra 28.03.2016

¶21

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

O.Gunalan, v. The President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Gunalan, v. The President

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

D.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Chief Election Officer

R.Mythili Vs The Deputy Collector (L.a)

S.Rangaraj, M/a 52 Yrs Vs The Principal Secretary to

Mr.R.Arjunan, Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/

M/s.Sri Vari Alloys India (P) Vs The Chairman and Managing

Smt. Neela Vs The Commissioner of