Disposed

K.S. Muthu, v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Oct 2016WP(MD)/10015/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a bath room allotment within eight weeks without deciding the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.08.2011 on merits and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

K.S. Muthu, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.10.2016 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.10015 of 2011

K.S.Muthu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶9

2.The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

¶10

3.The Medical Superintendent, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate Bath Room opposite to ward No.110, Madurai Rajaji Hospital, which was allotted to the petitioner by the hospital authorities as per the direction of the first respondent on 27.08.2010, by considering the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 17.08.2011 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Malaikani For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru A.G.P

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate Bath Room opposite to ward No.110, Madurai Rajaji Hospital, which was allotted to the petitioner by the hospital authorities as per the direction of the first respondent on 27.08.2010, by considering the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 17.08.2011 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶16

Heard Mr.S.Malaikani, learned counsel appearing for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner as well as Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶17

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶19

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.08.2011 and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶28

2.The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

¶29

3.The Medical Superintendent, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

¶30

+1 cc to Mr.S.Malaikani, Advocate in SR No.59014

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.10015 of 2011 04.10.2016

¶32

SKN

¶33

ANR/EM-MPA/01.11.2016/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.S. Muthu, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S. Muthu, v. the District Collector

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

K.K. Kumari Anitha, Vs the Chairman

T. Neelakantan, Vs the Reserve Bank of India

I. Chinnathai, 10TH Ward, Vs the Director of School

S. Sellandi, S/O.Sivan, Vs the District Collector

Fathima, Vs the District Collector

Mr. a. Sivaram, B.E., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu