Dismissed

K.Amul Rani Kumar, v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC24 Jan 2017WP/3425/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking to be permitted to officiate as Panchayat President. The Court held the petition infructuous as the petitioner's tenure as President of Villivakkam Panchayat had expired, directing the petitioner to file an appeal under the Act instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal before Appellate Authority within 12 weeks; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Amul Rani Kumar, Vs the Principal Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 24.01.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.3425 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Amul Rani Kumar ... Petitioner - Vs - 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Inspector of Panchayat / District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶6

The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned report dated 24.01.2011 Ref.No.Na.Ka.1929/2010/A3 and the Gazette Publication dated 27.1.2011 No.VI(2)/92(b)/2011 issued by the second respondent as well as the consequential order dated 28.1.2011 Ref.No.Na.Ka.1929/2010/A3/E(U), and quash the same and all consequential proceedings and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to officiate as President of Morai Village Panchayat, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶8

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.S.Navaneethan

¶9

Additional Government Pleader

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Challenging the impugned order dated 24.01.2011, passed under Section 205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994, the present Writ Petition is filed. In the aforesaid order, it has been clearly stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he can file an appeal under the provisions of the Act within 60 days.

¶13

The learned Additional Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was elected as a President of Villivakkam Panchayat for the period from 201116.The tenure of the said period has already been over. Therefore, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. But, however, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and in the light of the provisions under the above said Act, the petitioner can file an appeal against the impugned order passed by the District Collector, namely the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, if so advised within a period of 12 weeks from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. -s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ssn To

¶15

The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Inspector of Panchayat / District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶16

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

¶17

The Tahsildar, Ambattur Taluk, Ambattur, Thiruvallur District.

¶18

- 1 cc to Government Pleader sr 5293

¶19

W.P.No.3425 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
msm(co)
aa13/02/2017

¶20

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

K.Amul Rani Kumar, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Amul Rani Kumar, v. the Principal Secretary to

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

V.Rajendran, Vs the Chief Engineer /

S.Sathish Kumar Vs the Managing Director

P.Elango Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

D.Sakkaravarthi, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Siddhant K Aeren Vs the Director

K.Chellammal Vs the Asst. Director of Town