Disposed

A.Saravanan v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2017WP/17209/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to consider a representation regarding payment for executed work. The court disposed of the petition by directing the second respondent to consider the representation after hearing the petitioner within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Proceed with 'The petitioner's representation' and hearing within six weeks.

A.Saravanan Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.12.2017

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

W.P.No.17209 of 2017

A.Saravanan

...Petitioner

The District Collector, The Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam.

¶10

The Block Development Officer (Panchayat), Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.08.2015 and to direct the second respondent to make an inspection on the site namely Karimulli to Kodamora Salai and to make proper measurement and sanction the bill within a time frame fixed by this court.

¶12

For petitioner ... Mr.G.Ilamurugu For Respondents ... Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader ORDER

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents more particularly, the second respondent to consider his representation dated 11.08.2015 and sanction the bill within the time framed by this Court.

¶14

2.Heard both sides. 3.The petitioner claims to have executed some work under the respondents and his grievance is that the amount payable for executing such work has not been disbursed to him so far. Therefore, the petitioner made the above representation on 11.08.2015. It is stated that the said representation is not considered so far.

¶15

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

¶16

4.This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the second respondent to consider and decide. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, only with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.08.2015, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶17

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vri
To
1.The District Collector,
The Nilgiris District,
Udhagamandalam.
2.The Block Development Officer (Panchayat),
Udhagamandalam,
Nilgiris District.
+1 CC to Mr.G. Ilamurugan, Advocate sr 87143.
W.P.No.17209 of 2017

¶18

SP(15/12/2017)

¶19

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

A.Saravanan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Saravanan v. The District Collector

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

K.Raja, S/o.krishnasamy, Vs The Divisional Engineer

K.Sampath, Vs District Collector

R.Anbalagan, S/o.G.Raju Vs The Managing Director

Cespdi-Trishe Consortium, Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

Selva Rajendran @ Selvam Vs The Managing Director

S.Sakthivel Vs K.Jayaprakash