Disposed

K.Chinnamuthanan v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC8 Dec 2016WP(MD)/2182/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution invoked for a direction to government respondents to consider a representation regarding maintenance work on Athini Kanmai and other Kanmais in Sivagangai District, the High Court directed specific officials to consider the representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 5 and 6 to consider petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2014 within 8 weeks.

K.Chinnamuthanan Vs State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.12.2016 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P(MD)No.2182 of 2015

K.Chinnamuthanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai.

¶8

2.Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶9

4.Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyar Vaigai Basin Division, Chennai.

¶10

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Periyar Main Canal, Melur, Madurai District.

¶11

6.The District Collector, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2014, to renovate and do maintenance work in the Athini Kanmai and other 39 kanmais situated at kallarathinipatti, Sivagangai District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Md.Mohideen AGP

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner claiming to be an Ayakattudar of Athini Kanmai seeks for a direction to the respondents to renovate and do maintenance work in the said Athini Kanmai and other 39 kanmais situated at kallarathinipatti, Sivagangai District, by making representation on 16.12.2014.

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that the said representation has not been considered so far. Therefore, without going into the other merits of the matter, I only direct the respondents 5 and 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2014, and pass 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.

¶19

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Deputy Registrar (Admn.)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department,

¶26

Chennai.

¶27

2.The Engineer in Chief, Public Works Department, Chepauk,Chennai.

¶28

3.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Madurai Region,Madurai.

¶29

4.The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Periyar Vaigai Basin Division, Chennai.

¶30

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Organization, Periyar Main Canal, Melur, Madurai District.

¶31

6.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶32

+1 cc to Mr.J.Anandkumar,Advocate, Sr.No:80072

¶33

+1cc to M/S Special Government Pleader, Sr No.80280

¶34

W.P(MD)No.2182 of 2015 08.12.2016

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ skn rum/22.12.2016/2p/9c

K.Chinnamuthanan v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chinnamuthanan v. State of Tamilnadu

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

S. Prakash Vs the Commissioner

R. Chellapandi, Vs the Commissioner

Kabeebkhan, Vs the District Collector

A.Alagar Goundar, Vs the Tasildhar

Vairavan, Vs the Secretary

R.Nagarajan, Vs the Sub Registrar