Dismissed

L.Ukesh, v. The District Collecor

Madras HC11 Sept 2017WP/24349/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 praying for mandatory directives to dispose of a pending appeal was disposed of on the admission stage. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within eight weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

L.Ukesh, Vs The District Collecor — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.24349 of 2017

L.Ukesh

...Petitioner

vs. 1. The District Collecor Kancheepuram District. 2. The Assistant Land Tax Plan Officer (North) Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005 3. The Special Tahsildar Town Land Tax Planning (Revenue) Alandur, Kancheepuram District, Chennai. 4. P.Deepakaraman 5. M.Elumalai ... Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to dispose the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 10.03.2017 against the order made in Na.Ka.1181/2016, dated 02.12.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent, within the stipulated time.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Naganathan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.R.Rajeswaran

¶12

Special Govt. Pleader - for R1 to R3

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶15

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by him dated 10.03.2017 filed against the order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted that though the petitioner has filed the appeal

¶17

before the 2nd respondent as early as on 10.03.2017, the same has not yet been disposed of by the 2nd respondent.

¶18

Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 2nd respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks.

¶19

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 2nd respondent to consider the appeal dated 10.03.2017 filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Rj
To
1. The District Collecor
Kancheepuram District.
2. The Assistant Land Tax Plan Officer (North)
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005
3. The Special Tahsildar
Town Land Tax Planning (Revenue)
Alandur, Kancheepuram District, Chennai.
+1 CC to Mr.N. Naganathan, Advocate sr 65760.
+1 Cc to Govt. Pleader sr 66006.

¶21

W.P.No.24349 of 2017

¶22

SP(18/09/2017)

¶23

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

L.Ukesh, v. The District Collecor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Ukesh, v. The District Collecor

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

Kothakatta Sammaiah, Vs The Commissioner

R. Srinivasan Vs S.P. Kavitha

M.Nalini Vs Sri Shambu Kallolikar, IAS

K.Hari, Vs The District Collector

Mr.Suresh Bafna Vs the Chairman

B.Sasikala Vs The Regional Passport Officer