Disposed

N. Govindarajan, v. the Chief Electoral

Madras HC25 Oct 2016WP(MD)/936/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the Transport Commissioner and other respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2012 on merits with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. The writ petition is disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2012 and pass appropriate orders on merits with an opportunity of hearing within four weeks.

N. Govindarajan, Vs the Chief Electoral — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.10.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.936 of 2013

N.Govindaraju

Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Electoral Officer,

¶11

State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Public (Election) Department,

¶13

Fort St. George,

¶14

Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

2.The Secretary to Government,

¶16

Home (Transport) Department,

¶17

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶18

3.The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority,

¶19

Secretariat, Chennai.

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to consider on the petitioner's representation, dated 06.12.2012. and pass suitable orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthilkumar

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthil for R1

¶24

Mr.Aairam K.Selvakumar Govt. Advocate for R2 & R3

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation, dated 06.12.2012, and pass suitable orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶27

2.Heard both sides.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that it would suffice if the representation of the petitioner is disposed of, by the respondents, on merits and in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶29

¶30

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the representation of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law by the third respondent.

¶31

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.12.2012, and pass appropriate orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as interested parties, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶33

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Writs)

¶34

/True copy/

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

To 1.The Chief Electoral Officer, State of Tamil Nadu, Public (Election) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶37

2.The Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶38

3.The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.D.SENTHILKUMAR, Advocate, SR No.63741

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.936 of 2013 25.10.2016

¶41

skn

¶42

SH/SKS-RR:18.11.2016:2P/5C

¶43

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

N. Govindarajan, v. the Chief Electoral

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Govindarajan, v. the Chief Electoral

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

A.Ahamed Ibrahim, Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Settu Vs Krishnan

Satbir Singh Bakshi Vs Saroja

Raja Dhinakaran, Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Natarajan, Vs the Secretary to Government

B.Rani, Vs the District Elementary -