Partly allowed

P.Yogavathi v. The Chiarman

Madras HC1 Sept 2017WP/23642/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2017 regarding alleged bigamy by her husband under Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules. Court directed consideration within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2017 and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

P.Yogavathi Vs The Chiarman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :01.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.23642 of 2017

¶6

P. Yogavathi .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
K.R.R. Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
2.The Chief Engineer,
O/o. The Chief Engineer Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Erode-638 009.
3.The Superintending Engineer,
O/o. The Chief Engineer Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Namakkal-637 001.
.. Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2017 and pass an appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law by invoking Section 3A and 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules,1973.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. V.R. Venkatesan

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Dhilipkumar for R1 to R3.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.06.2017 on the basis of Section 3A and 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules,1973.

¶12

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

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the fourth respondent has committed an offence of bigamy, however, no action was taken by the respondent. In this regard, the writ petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 15.06.2017.

¶14

Having regard to the fact that representation submitted by the writ petitioner was not considered by the respondents, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.06.2017 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
However, no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
rpl
To
1. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
K.R.R. Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002
2. The Chief Engineer,
O/o. The Chief Engineer Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Erode-638 009.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
O/o. The Chief Engineer Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Namakkal-637 001.
+1cc to Mr.M.Saravanakumar, Advocate in sr.no.63308

¶16

W.P.No.23642 of 2017

¶17

KS(CO) NR 25/09/2017

¶18

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

P.Yogavathi v. The Chiarman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Yogavathi v. The Chiarman

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

B. Kumar Vs The Govt. of Tamil Nadu

M.K.Vidya Vs Kannappan

K.Vignesh, Vs The Chairman

U.R.Dhavamani, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

C.N.Shanmugaraj Vs The Secretary to Government

Tmt.a.Cecily Maria Helan Vs The State of Tamilnadu