Disposed

Mrs.C.Shantha, v. The Secretary to Govt. of

Madras HC27 Jan 2017WP/143/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the State Housing Board and executing officers to consider the petitioner's representations regarding an allotment, grant a personal hearing to the petitioner as well as the original allottee, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider representations, grant personal hearing to petitioner and original allottee, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Mrs.C.Shantha, Vs The Secretary to Govt. of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 27.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

W.P.No.143 of 2017

¶6

C.Shantha ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶9

The Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Rep. by its Secretary, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.

¶10

The Executive Engineer and Administrative Office (Sales and Service), Coimbatore Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office, Coimbatore-642 012. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 25.06.2011 and 08.06.2015 and to pass necessary orders after granting the petitioner a personal hearing, within a period that may be fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghupathi

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.V.Anandamoorthy

¶14

The Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 25.06.2011 and 08.06.2015 and to pass necessary orders after granting the petitioner a personal hearing, within a period that may be fixed by this Court.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would state that the name of the original allottee

¶18

has not been mentioned as a party in the writ petition. Therefore, while disposing of the representation of the petitioner, the respondents will give notice to the original allottee also and thereafter only pass orders.

¶19

Considering the limited prayer made in the writ petition and the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.06.2011 followed by the representation dated 08.06.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the original allottee, and thereafter pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶20

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
tsi
To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Housing Board,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.
3. The Executive Engineer and Administrative
Office (Sales and Service),
Coimbatore Housing Unit,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,
Coimbatore-642 012.
+1cc to Government Pleader sr.5401
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghupathi, Advocate sr.5160
+1cc to Mr.V.Anandha murthy, Advocate sr.5562

¶21

W.P.No.143 of 2017

¶22

ss1(co)

¶23

ss(14/2/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs.C.Shantha, v. The Secretary to Govt. of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.C.Shantha, v. The Secretary to Govt. of

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

D.Nelson Vs The Tahsildar

S. Shanmugam, S/o. Sengoda Vs The District Collector

E.Adimoolam, Vs The Managing Director

C.S.Chandra Vs The District Collector

S.Bharathkumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Suguna Vs The Commissioner