Disposed

K.S. Govindaraj v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC3 Oct 2016WP(MD)/20325/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider his representation dated 23.11.2012 and reject claims by respondents 3 to 5 regarding transfer of service connections. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation, conduct an enquiry after pr

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2012, conduct enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, and pass orders on m

K.S. Govindaraj Vs the Superintending Engineer — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.10.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.20325 of 2013

¶7

K.S.Govindaraj : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Superintending Engineer, TANGEDCO, Sivagangai District.

¶10

2.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

¶11

3.R.Santhosh kumar 4.R.Krishna kumar

¶12

5.R.Babu : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.11.2012 and reject the claim of the respondents 3 to 5 for transferring the name of the service connections in respect of S.C.Nos.C 417 and C 663 in Singampunari Circle.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.K.Manickam For Respondents : Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha 1 and 2 For Respondents : Mr.D.Saidq Raja 3 to 5

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.11.2012

¶17

¶18

and reject the claim of the respondents 3 to 5 for transferring the name of the service connections in respect of S.C.Nos.C 417 and C 663 in Singampunari Circle.

¶19

2.Heard Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶20

Mr.S.M.S.Johnny Basha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 as well as Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5.

¶21

3.After some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

4.Considering the limited prayer sought for by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.11.2012, conduct enquiry and after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 to 5, pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law,, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Superintending Engineer,

¶29

TANGEDCO,

¶30

Sivagangai District.

¶31

2.The Assistant Engineer,

¶32

TANGEDCO,

¶33

Singampunari,

¶34

Sivagangai District.

¶35

+1 cc to M/s.A.K.Manickam, Advocate in SR.No.58577 +1 cc to M/s.D.Sadiq Raja, Advocate in SR.No.58428

¶36

smn

¶37

CSL/SS-3/14.10.2016: 2p/5c

¶38

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.20325 of 2013 03.10.2016

¶39

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

K.S. Govindaraj v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S. Govindaraj v. the Superintending Engineer

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

K.Ravi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

Asan Mohamad Jailabudeen, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

Rafeeq Ahmed Mustafa, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

K.K. Kumari Anitha, Vs the Chairman

T. Neelakantan, Vs the Reserve Bank of India

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