Dismissed

B.Shankar v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC7 Aug 2017WP/20922/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Justice M. Duraiswamy dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that an alternative remedy by way of appeal was available and granted liberty to challenge the order before the appropriate appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the appellant authority within one week. Petition closed. No costs.

B.Shankar Vs The Tahsildar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.20922 of 2017
and
W.M.P.No.21807 of 2017
B.Shankar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Tahsildar,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai - 600 095.
2. Latha Vijayakumar
3. The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ambathur, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to the first respondent made in Na.Ka.No.32/2017/A1, dated 07.07.2017 to quash the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Jasmine Padma For Respondents : Mr.Era.Premnath, Government Advocate

¶8

O R D E R Mr.Era.Premnath, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶9

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent dated 07.07.2017 and to quash the same.

¶10

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

¶11

3.The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the first respondent-Thasildar.

¶12

Since the petitioner has got the remedy by way of an appeal before the third respondent, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 before the third respondent, in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

5.With these observations, the writ petition is closed,

¶14

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶15

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Rj/ah
To
1.The Tahsildar,
Maduravoyal,
Chennai - 600 095.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ambathur, Chennai.
4. The Section Officer
Writ Section
High Court, Madras.
+1 Cc to Mr.L Chandrakumar, advocate sr 56711.

¶16

W.P.No.20922 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.21807 of 2017

¶17

VD(CO) sp(22/08/2017)

¶18

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

B.Shankar v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Shankar v. The Tahsildar

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

Mr.R.Sivanesan, Vs Inspector of Police

P.Devaram, Vs The Commissioner

R.Ravi Vs S.Palanisamy, IAS

Mrs.Lakshmiammal Vs The Thasildar

V.Nagarajan Vs The District Revenue officer

V. Agastesan Vs The Inspector General of