Disposed

V.Manjula v. the Managing Director

Madras HC14 Nov 2016WP(MD)/20040/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to the Special Tahsildar to consider a representation dated 07.10.2013 regarding her appeal against order excluding her from LIC in connection with Cable T.V. business.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 07.10.2013 within 12 weeks.

V.Manjula Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20040 of 2013

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

V.Manjula

... Petitioner

Vs .

The Managing director,

¶13

Government Cable T.V.,

¶14

No.11/22 Mangadu Samy Street, Nungambakkam

¶15

Chennai – 600 031.

¶16

The Special Tahsildar,

¶17

Tamil Nadu Arasu Government,

Cable T.V.,

Madurai.

3.Ravi

4.Pandiarajan

5.Jothi Jeyakumar

... Respondents

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to take suitable action on petitioner's representation submitted to them on 07.10.2013.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.S.K.Manikandan For R1 & R2 : Mr.Abdul Saleem For R3 : Mr.V.Janakiramalu

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The Writ petition has been filed for a direction to the second respondent to take suitable action on petitioner's representation submitted to them, on 07.10.2013.

¶28

According to the petitioner, she is conducting Cable TV business for the past 20 years and she had registered his name with the Government Cable TV Corporation and his register number https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is LCO No.011472. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has given a representation to the respondents on 07.10.2013 and so

¶29

¶30

far, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition.

¶31

Mr.Abdul Saleem, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Arasu Cable TV Corporation submitted that they are ready and willing to consider the petitioner's representation within a time limit prescribed by this Court.

¶32

In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.10.2013, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as any rival claimant, if any, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

Sd/

¶35

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶36

/TRUE COPY/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

1.The Managing director, Government Cable T.V.,

¶40

No.11/22 Mangadu Samy Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 031.

¶41

2.The Special Tahsildar,Tamil Nadu Arasu Government, Cable T.V., Madurai.

¶42

W.P.(MD)No.20040 of 2013

¶43

14.11.2016

¶44

akv

¶45

msm-skn/03.01.17/p2/3c

¶46

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

V.Manjula v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Manjula v. the Managing Director

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

Ayyankannu, Vs the District Collector

M.Perumal, Vs the District Collector

V.Pichai Ambalam, Vs the District Collector

Thangaraj Vs the Director

A.Pandi, Vs the Managing Director

T.G. Sanathanam @ Vs the Director of Town