Dismissed

M.Subramanian, v. the District Collector and

Madras HC21 Apr 2016WP(MD)/14850/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue a Community Certificate to his son as 'Hindu Kuravan' Scheduled Caste. The court found that based on a certificate dated 10.11.2014 issued by the Tahsildar, the petitioner's prayer had been addressed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

M.Subramanian, Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.04.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶7

M.Subramanian

¶8

1.The District Collector and the Chairman,

¶9

District Level Vigilance Committee, Pudukkottai District Collectorate, Pudukkottai.

¶10

2.The Tahshildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2014 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue the Community Certificate to the petitioner's son Manikandan as 'Hindu Kuravan' Scheduled Caste Community in accordance with law, at once.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR,J.)

¶14

The petitioner has sought for a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2014 and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to issue the Community Certificate to the petitioner's son Manikandan as 'Hindu Kuravan' Scheduled Caste Community in accordance with law.

¶15

2.Based on the certificate dated 10.11.2014, issued by the Tahsildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District, learned Special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government Pleader submitted that the prayer sought for by the petitioner has been addressed. Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner also acknowledged the said submission.

¶16

¶17

3.In view of the above, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Writ)

¶19

/True copy/

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶21

rj2 To 1.The District Collector and the Chairman, District Level Vigilance Committee, Pudukkottai District Collectorate, Pudukkottai. 2.The Tahshildar, Kulathur Taluk, Pudukkottai District. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader SR No.22949 +1 cc to Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate, SR No.22424 RG.JGB-SS/ 09/05/2016 2P.5C W.P.(MD)No.14850 of 2014 21.04.2016

¶22

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

M.Subramanian, v. the District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Subramanian, v. the District Collector and

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

The Secretary, Vs Ganasundari

Nellai Maavatta Panjaalai Vs Ms/.Subburaj Textile Mills

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs P.Manikandan

R.Selvaraj Vs the Distric Collector

The District Elementary Vs P.Savarimuthu Maria

The Government of Tamilnadu, Vs R.Shoba Shanthini