Disposed

Pushpaveni, v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Sept 2017WP/24767/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition at admission. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within eight weeks after notifying the 6th respondent, without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; 1st respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass orders within eight weeks after notice to 6th respondent.

Pushpaveni, Vs The District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

W.P.No.24767 of 2017

Pushpaveni

...Petitioner

1 The District Collector Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 2 The Executive Engineer Public Works Department PAP Project Makkinampatti Post, Pollachi Coimbatore District. 3 Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department PAP Project, Subdivision Office Aliyar, Pollachi Taluk Coimbatore District. 4 The Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar Pollachi, Coimbatore District. 5 The Revenue Inspector Kottur, Pollachi Taluk Coimbatore District 6 Arukkani ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to consider the representation dated 08.09.2017 sent by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within the time fixed by this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R5

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.R.Rajeswaran , learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 to 5. 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 1st respondent to consider her dated 08.09.2017 and pass appropriate orders, within a time frame.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2017, the 1st respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶17

4.Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2017 and pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the 6th respondent, within a period of eight weeks.

¶18

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 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2017 and pass orders, in accordance with law, after giving notice to the 6th respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

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

¶20

/true copy/

¶21

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

Rj
To
1 The District Collector
Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.
2 The Executive Engineer
Public Works Department
PAP Project
Makkinampatti Post, Pollachi
Coimbatore District.
3 Sub Divisional Officer
Public Works Department
PAP Project, Subdivision Office
Aliyar, Pollachi Taluk
Coimbatore District.
4 The Zonal Deputy Tahsildhar
Pollachi, Coimbatore District.
5 The Revenue Inspector
Kottur, Pollachi Taluk
Coimbatore District
+1cc to Mr.C.Veeraraghavan, Advocate Sr. 67873
W.P.No.24767 of 2017
KJI(CO)
VR(05/10/2017)

¶24

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

Pushpaveni, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpaveni, 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

M.Nagarajan, Vs The Inspector General of

M/s.Superfil Products Private Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and

D.Charles, Vs The Thasildhar

K. Rajee Vs The Tahsildar

M.Palanivel, Vs The District Collector

M/S.Essee Cans Vs the Chairman & Managing