M.Sornam v. The Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for allotment of a shop. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as no representation appeared on behalf of the petitioner during hearings.
What did the court decide?
null
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
W.P.No.37232 of 2016
M.Sornam .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Collector
Salem District.
2. The Assistant Director of Panchayat
Salem District.
3. The Executive Officer-cum-the BDO
Thalaivasal Panchayat,
Attur Taluk, Salem District.
4. The President
Thalaivasal Panchayat,
Attur Taluk, Salem District.
5. V.Ramesh
(R5 is impleaded as per order of this Court
dated 14.06.2017 made in WMP.38017/2016
in W.P.No.37232/2016) .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1,2,3,4 & 5 to stop the allotment of shop No.5 to others and directing to allot the shop No.5 to the legal heir of the deceased's wife and grant or provide the benefits of Hindu Succession Act 30 of 1956, particularly the respondent Nos.1,2,3,4 & 5 to order for allot a shop No.5 to the petitioner with effect from 17.10.2016 not to allot the shop No.5 to others.
For Petitioner .. No appearance For respondents .. Mr.M.E.Raniselvam Additonal Government Pleader (For RR1 to 4) Mr.N.Anand Venkates (For R5)
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.Sornam
- respondent
The Collector, Salem District
- respondent
The Assistant Director of Panchayat, Salem District
- respondent
The Executive Officer-cum-the BDO, Thalaivasal Panchayat
- respondent
The President, Thalaivasal Panchayat
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court