The Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Appeal challenging a Single Judge's order directing the first respondent to dispose of a revision petition expeditiously. The court held the order was not illegal.
The Writ Appeal was dismissed, parties to bear own costs, connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.A.(MD)No.1293 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
Gurupanchapakesavan
: Appellant
Vs.
Virudhunagar District, O/o. District Collectorate Complex,
Virudhunagar.
: Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 28.02.2013 passed in W.P(MD)No.2097 of 2013.
Prayer in WP(MD). 2097/ 2013 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, directing the 1st Respondent herein to dispose the Revision Petition No.B2-3211 of 2011 filed by the 2nd Respondent dated 07-02-2011 against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, passed in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.A1/6071/10 dated 27-01-2011 at an early date fixed by this Honourable Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Paulmurugan, For Mr.N.Mohideen Basha For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.Guru,
Additional Government Pleader
**JUDGMENT **************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.VENUGOPAL, J.]
The Appellant/second Respondent has preferred the instant Writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appeal as against the Order dated 28.02.2013 in W.P.(MD)No.2097 of
2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.
2
" 5. The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the revision petition filed by the second respondent challenging the order dated 07.02.2011 as expeditiously as possible and in any case, on or before 31.05.2013. It is needless to mention that reasonable opportunity should be given to the petitioner and the second respondent before passing orders in the revision petition."
and disposed of the Writ Petition.
3
appellate jurisdiction.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AE)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District, O/o. District Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar .
SML
TE/KP/SAR-IV : 13/10/2017 : 3P/3C
Judgment made in W.A.(MD)No.1293 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 Dated: 04.10.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Revenue Officer to decide the revision petition without giving the appellant an opportunity to defend.
Gurupanchapakesavan
District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar
M.VENUGOPAL
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
