Disposed

Parvathi, v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC19 Sept 2017WP/25001/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner filed a representation that remained unaddressed by the District Revenue Officer. The court directed the respondent to acknowledge the representation, notify interested parties, and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitioner directed the respondent to consider her representation and pass orders within twelve weeks after giving notice to interested parties.

Parvathi, Vs The District Revenue Officer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 19.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Honourable MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.25001 of 2017

¶6

Parvathi [ Petitioner ]
Vs
1 The District Revenue Officer
Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri
2 The Sub Collector
Hosur Krishnagiri District
3 Tahsildar
Taluk Office Krishnagiri District
4 Narayanappa
5 B.N.Abbayya
6 B.N.Prakash

¶7

[ Respondents]

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 14.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, GA (R1-3)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1 to 3. By consent, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st

¶14

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

¶15

respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 14.03.2016 submitted by her, in accordance with law, within a time frame.

¶16

Mr.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that inspite of the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2017, the 1^st respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶17

Mr.S.N.Parthasarathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2016, and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks, after giving notice to all the interested parties.

¶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 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2016 and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to all the interested parties. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rg To 1 The District Revenue Officer Krishnagiri District Krishnagiri 2 The Sub Collector Hosur Krishnagiri District 3 Tahsildar Taluk Office Krishnagiri District +1cc to Mr.K.Kovi Ganesan, Advocate sr.68656 +1cc to Government Pleader sr.69508

¶20

W.P.No.25001 of 2017

¶21

ss(9/10/2017)

¶22

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

Parvathi, v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathi, v. The District Revenue Officer

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

R.Muthaiyan Vs The Secretary

Kapico Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr.Devanand

B.Anandkumar Vs R.Vengatesan

R.Ashok, Vs The District Collector

M.Kalidoss, S/o.Muthaiah, Vs The District Collector

K.Palanisamy Vs The District Backward Class