Disposed

R.Selvam v. The Tahsildar

Madras HC10 Aug 2017WP/21310/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the respondent Tahsilar to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2016 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, following due notice to interested parties, without opining on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2016 and pass orders within four weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

R.Selvam Vs The Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.08.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.21310 of 2017

¶6

R.Selvam ... Petitioner
vs.
The Tahsilar
Paramathi Velur Taluk
Namakkal District ... Respondent
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of
Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2016 within the
time stipulated by this court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Senniyangiri
For Respondent : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy
Government Advocate
ORDER
Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned Government Advocate,
takes notice for the respondent. By consent, the main writ
petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission
stage itself.

¶7

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider his representation dated 22.09.2016, within a time frame. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has given the representation as early as 22.09.2016, the respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶8

Mr.S.N.Parthasarathy, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent submitted that on production of necessary documents, the respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶9

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

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2016 and pass orders, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the documents to be produced by the petitioner and also after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶11

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶12

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
The Tahsilar
Paramathi Velur Taluk
Namakkal District
+1 CC to Mr.P. Senniyangiri, advocate sr 57775
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 58550.
W.P.No.21310 of 2017
SP(23/08/2017)

¶13

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

R.Selvam v. The Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Selvam 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

C.Kannan, Dr NO.37637 Vs The Transport Commissioner

P.Ramesh, Vs The Senior Divisional

B.Bakiyaraj, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

S. Jayakumar Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

B.R.Manoharan, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Sridhar, Vs The Special commissioner