Disposed

K.Gopinath v. the Revenue Divisional

Madras HC5 Aug 2016WP(MD)/11203/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench defended the writ petition to forbid departmental proceedings without subsistence allowance. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2015 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.04.2015 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

K.Gopinath Vs the Revenue Divisional — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.08.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11203 of 2015 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015

¶8

K.Gopinath .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶11

O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai,

¶12

Sivagangai District.

¶13

2.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District. .. Respondent

¶14

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from initiating Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner without providing Subsistence Allowance as per Rule 53(1) of Fundamental Rules of The Tamil Nadu Government.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.Aayiram K. Selvakumar

¶17

Government Advocate

¶18

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Mandamus to forbear the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from initiating Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner without providing Subsistence Allowance as per Rule 53(1) of Fundamental Rules of The Tamil Nadu Government.

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶21

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

¶22

3.Though the Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Mandamus to forbear the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 from initiating

¶23

¶24

Departmental Proceedings against the Petitioner without providing Subsistence Allowance as per Rule 53(1) of Fundamental Rules of The Tamil Nadu Government, the petitioner is now seeking indulgence of this Court to give a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai District, first respondent herein, to consider the petitioner's representation that was submitted by him on 04.04.2015. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2015 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

4.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

SRM

¶30

¶31

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivagangai,

¶32

Sivagangai District.

¶33

2.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶34

+1CC to Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate Sr.No.42501 GJM/PV/MPA/18.8.16-2p-4c

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.11203 of 2015 05.08.2016

¶36

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

K.Gopinath v. the Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gopinath v. the Revenue Divisional

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. Vasanthi Vs the Zonal Deputy Thasildhar

Sarojinidevi, Vs the Commissioner

S.Jesuraj Maria Susai, Vs the District Collector

K. Raja Vs the District Collector

Rajendran, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr.M. Mahalingam, Vs Tamilnadu Generation and