Disposed

K.R.Nehru v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC15 Jun 2016WP(MD)/9514/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a community certificate. The Special Government Pleader informed the court that the Tahsildar had already passed detailed orders denying the claim. Consequently, the court held the petitioner must challenge those orders via a separate writ petition and disposed of the current petition without deciding the meri

What did the court decide?

None. Preserved for a separate writ petition challenging the Tahsildar's order. No costs.

K.R.Nehru Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.06.2016

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.9514 of 2016 K.R.Nehru ... Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶10

3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar – I, Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to complete the enquiry and issue community certificate of Hindu Telungupatty Chetty to the petitioner's son Veeramanikandan, based on the recommendation of the first respondent by its letter Na.Ka.No.m/7/1583/2016, dated 25.04.2016 to second respondent within the period stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader ***

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made

¶15

by NOOTY.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J )

¶16

This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking a Writ of Mandamus for directing the respondents to complete the enquiry and issue the necessary Community Certificate that the writ petitioner belongs to Hindu Thelungupattichetty community. The necessity to refer to the facts in great detail is obviated because of the intervention of the learned Special Government Pleader, very rightly, according to us, to bring to our notice that the Tahsildar of Sankarankovil, the second respondent herein, has passed detailed orders on 23^rd September, 2014, negativing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claim of the writ petitioner and he has also despatched the said orders by registered post on 29^th September, 2014 and that was

¶17

¶18

received by the writ petitioner on 30^th September, 2014. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would urge that he has been left with no such instructions from his client and consequently, he will not be able to confirm one way or the other this factual controversy.

¶19

2.Be that as it may. Now that the Tahsildar, Sankarankovil, has passed orders on 23^rd September, 2014, declining to grant the Certificate in favour of the writ petitioner, it is only appropriate that the writ petitioner could be left with the choice of calling in question the legality and validity of such proceedings by instituting an appropriate writ petition and hence, we refrain from expressing any opinion one way or the other on the tenability or otherwise of the claim made by the writ petitioner and any such issue can be raised in an appropriately instituted writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 23^rd September, 2014. In fact, at our request, the learned Special Government Pleader has spared a copy of the proceedings dated 23^rd September, 2014 which we have in turn passed on to the learned counsel for the petitioner. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of Revenue Divisional Office, Tirunelveli.

¶26

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶27

3.The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar – I, Taluk Office, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.a.Hajamohideen Advocate CC SR.30742

¶29

+1cc to M/S.THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR NO: 30849 srm

¶30

JA-SK-SKN/24.6.2016/2P-6C

¶31

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

¶32

Writ Petition (MD) No.9514 of 2016 15.06.2016

K.R.Nehru v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Nehru v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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 Joint Director of Vs E.Sankaranarayanan

Saisiva @ Sivasubramanian Vs the Joint Commissioner

The Secretary to Government, Vs a.v.High School

P.Thangamani Vs the Chairman & Managing

R.Samiyathal, F/75 Vs R.Balumani

Seethalakshmi Ammal, Vs Amaladoss Stephen