Disposed

R.Anbalagan, S/o.G.Raju v. The Managing Director

Madras HC6 Dec 2017WP/31398/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for a cable connection within eight weeks without expressing views on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 02.11.2016 and 23.02.2017 within eight weeks.

R.Anbalagan, S/o.G.Raju Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.31398 of 2017
and
WMP.No.34531 of 2017
R.Anbalagan
S/o.G.Raju .. Petitioner
versus
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation Ltd., Dugar Tower's
No.34 (123) 6th Floor, Marshalls Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The District Collector
Collector Office
Salem-1.
3.The Special Thasildhar
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation Ltd.,
Collector Office Premises
Salem-1. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing
the first respondent to give cable connection (Arasu Cable
Signal) to the petitioner LCO number: 49925 at D.No.75,
Paventhar Street, Leigh Bazer Main Road, Arisipalayam, Salem-636
009 in accordance with law.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Nandagopal For Respondents : Mr.S.Gunasekaran standing counsel for R1 & R3 Mr.R.Govindasamy Special Government Pleader for R2

¶7

Mr.S.Gunasekaran, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents 1 & 3. Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the second respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶8

Heard both sides.

¶9

The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to give cable connection (Arasu Cable Signal) to the petitioner LCO number: 49925 at D.No.75, Paventhar Street, Leigh Bazer Main Road, Arisipalayam, Salem-636 009.

¶10

It is seen that the petitioner has already made the representations to the respondents on 02.11.2016 and 23.02.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said request has not been considered so far. At this stage, this Court, is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the first respondent to consider and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, only by directing the first respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 02.11.2016 and 23.02.2017, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶11

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(J)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation Ltd., Dugar Tower's
No.34 (123) 6th Floor, Marshalls Road,
Egmore, Chennai-8.
2.The District Collector
Collector Office
Salem-1.
3.The Special Thasildhar
Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV
Corporation Ltd.,
Collector Office Premises
Salem-1.
+1cc to Mr.J.Nanda Gopal Advocate SR.No.86480
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.87427

¶12

GN(18/12/2017)

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.No.31398 of 2017

R.Anbalagan, S/o.G.Raju v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Anbalagan, S/o.G.Raju v. The Managing Director

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.Selvaraj, Vs The Regional Pasport Officer

R.Ramuammal Vs a.E.Prabhu

A.Kanmani Agustus Vs The Chairman

B.Ramesh Babu, Vs Indian Overseas Bank

V.Leelavathi, Vs The Commissioner

R.Raja, Member No.611 Vs The Deputy Director of