Dismissed

Kannadasan, v. the Director

Madras HC16 Feb 2017WP(MD)/2628/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph disposal order by the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition. The court deemed the underlying grievance trivial based on the petitioner's representation and directed the first respondent to consider the application on its merits without issuing a writ of mandamus.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2016 on its merits.

Kannadasan, Vs the Director — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

WP(MD) No.2628 of 2017

¶7

Kannadasan .. Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, E.V.K.Sampath Malligai, Chennai.

¶10

The Principal, Periyar E.V.R.College(Autonomous), Trichirappalli-23. .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.07.2016 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Illanchezian For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The prayer in this writ petition is for issuance of writ of mandamus, to direct the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 03.07.2016, pending on the file of the 1^st respondent herein.

¶15

2.Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both the parties this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

¶16

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶17

4.Since the prayer sought for in this writ petition eventhough is a mandamus to consider the representation of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner, dated 03.07.2016 submitted to the first respondent, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be very trivial in nature as has been projected in the said representation. Hence, the learned

¶18

¶19

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would contend that the respondents would be given suitable advice to decide the said representation given by the petitioner, considering its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

Recording the said submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (Writs)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, E.V.K.Sampath Malligai, Chennai.

¶27

The Principal, Periyar E.V.R.College(Autonomous), Trichirappalli-23.

¶28

1 CC TO M/s.V.ILLANCHEZIAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 8840 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 8970 PJL TE/MR : 27/02/2017 : 2P/5C

¶29

WP(MD) No.2628 of 2017 16.02.2017

¶30

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

Kannadasan, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannadasan, v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L. Sankararaaj, Vs the Agricultural Production

D.P.Francy Diana Vs the Chief Engineer

C.Rengasamy, Vs the District Collector

B.Arsath Abdulla Vs the Joint Registrar of

T.S.Sathiamoorthi Vs the Joint Registrar of

S.Muthuvel, Vs the District Collector