Disposed

T.Suresh, v. The Tashildar

Madras HC6 Jan 2017WP/432/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue a Family Card by considering his representation dated 15.12.2016. The Court directed the respondent to consider the representation on merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2016 on merits and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

T.Suresh, Vs The Tashildar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.01.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.432 of 2017

¶6

T.Suresh ... Petitioner

¶7

The Tahsildar, Chinna Salem Taluk, Villupuram District. ... Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to issue a Family Card in the name of the petitioner by considering his representation dated 15.12.2016.

¶9

The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent to issue Family Card in his name by considering his representation dated 15.12.2016.

¶10

According to the petitioner, he is working as a coolie and his name was removed from his father's Family Card bearing Card No.07/G/0294932 on 27.08.2010 and his wife's name was also removed from her mother's Family Card bearing No.07/G/0296270 on 27.08.2010. Hence, he applied for a Family Card on 13.09.2010 containing his name, his wife's name viz. S.Saranya and his son's name, viz. S.Tamizhvanan and it was registered with the respondent's Office vide No.1656/2010.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite furnishing copies of his voter ID, Electricity Bill and Pass Book, the respondent has not taken any steps to issue a Family Card to him. Hence, he sent a further representation to the respondent on 15.12.2016. Pending consideration of the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2016 on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible.

¶15

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶16

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
aeb
To:
The Tahsildar,
Chinna Salem Taluk,
Villupuram District.
+1cc to Mr.R.Jayaprakash, Advocate sr.1976
+1cc to the Government Pleader sr.2062
W.P.No.432 of 2017
kji[co]
srg 2/2/2017

¶17

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

T.Suresh, v. The Tashildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Suresh, v. The Tashildar

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

Dr.Kent.a.Krishnaswamy, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Jagatheesan, Vs Dr.C.Chandromouli, Ias.

Gowri, D/o.Kolanthai @ Vs The Thasildar

V.Harikrishnan Naicker, Vs The Inspector General of

Dr.M.Mohan, Venkatachalapathy Vs The Secretary

Fathima Thameema Pk Vs The Secretary