Disposed

D.Gnanaiah @ Ezhilan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Jun 2017WP(MD)/10949/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a writ petition filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to release drought relief, disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the second respondent within two weeks, and for the second respondent to decide the same on merits within six weeks.

D.Gnanaiah @ Ezhilan, Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 13.06.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10949 of 2017

D.Gnanaiah @Ezhilan

..Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶11

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

3.The Village Administrative Officer, Karisathan Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ..Respondents.

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the drought relief as per norms of the Government and dispose of the application made by the Petitioner based upon the representation of the Petitioner, dated 24.4.2017.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Addl.Govt.Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to release the drought relief as per norms of the Government and dispose of the application made by the Petitioner based upon the representation of the Petitioner, dated 24.4.2017.

¶18

2.Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶19

3.By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal, at the admission stage itself.

¶20

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

¶21

4.According to the Petitioner, he owns a land in S.No.185 of Karisathan Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District and

¶22

¶23

patta was also issued in his favour in Patta No.134. The Petitioner would further state that he had cultivated Corn in his land. Due to monsoon failure, he could not get any yield from the crops. So he made a representation to the respondents seeking drought relief.

¶24

5.It is further alleged that the third respondent/the Village Administrative Officer, Karisathan Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District has made a wrong credit to the other account, instead of the Petitioner's account, which was also brought to the notice of the respondents, Since no action was taken, the Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition, for the relief stated supra.

¶25

6.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the second respondent is the competent authority to consider the grievance of the Petitioner. But the Petitioner has made representation only to the first respondent. He would further submit that if the Petitioner gives a fresh representation to the second respondent, he would consider the same on merits and in accordance with law, within the time limit prescribed by this Court.

¶26

7.Considering the above said submission, the Petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation enclosing a copy of this order to the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders on the same, after giving notice to the Petitioner and other interested parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks therefrom.

¶27

8.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CSIII)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli. 2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Village Administrative Officer, Karisathan Village, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. +One cc to Mr.K.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.59866 vsn

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/5C/2P/SV/MMS/SAR1/27/6/2017 W.P(MD)No.10949 of 2017

¶35

13.06.2017

D.Gnanaiah @ Ezhilan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Gnanaiah @ Ezhilan, v. the District Collector

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

Imtiaz Abdul Latif Vs The Inspector General of

Dr.a.Saminathan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

A.Rangasamy, Vs The Principal Secretary cum

M/S.Ashok Transport Vs the Managing Director

K.Nagarjan, S/O.Karuppaiah, Vs the Inspector General of

K.Rani, D/O.Rukhmani, Vs the Commissioner