Allowed

S.Pappathi v. the Chief Secretary to

Madras HC10 Mar 2017WP(MD)/4107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to consider and dispose of a representation submitted by the petitioner on 18.01.2017 within one week without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representation dated 18.01.2017 and dispose of it within one week without costs.

S.Pappathi Vs the Chief Secretary to — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.03.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.4107 of 2017

S.Pappathi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

2.The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul – 624 004. 4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Nanganjiyar Division, Palani – 624 601, Dindigul District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2017 within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrasekar For Respondents : Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the representation, dated 18.01.2017, by way of issuing a writ of Mandamus.

¶19

2.Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

¶20

3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner has given a representation on 18.01.2017 to the respondents, but the same has not been considered.

¶21

4.Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶22

5.In fine, this writ petition is allowed without costs and the respondents 3 and 4 are strictly directed to consider the representation, dated 18.01.2017 and dispose of the same within a period of one week.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CSIII) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶28

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶29

2.The Secretary to Government,

¶30

Public Works Department,

¶31

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶32

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

3.The District Collector,

¶34

Dindigul District,

¶35

Dindigul – 624 004.

¶36

4.The Executive Engineer,

¶37

Public Works Department, Nanganjiyar Division,

¶38

Palani – 624 601, Dindigul District.

¶39

+One cc to Mr.V.Chandrasekar, Advocate, SR.No.13712

¶40

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.14111

¶41

¶42

RL/7C/2P/RR/SAR3/14.3.2017 W.P(MD)No.4107 of 2017

¶43

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

¶44

10.03.2017

S.Pappathi v. the Chief Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pappathi v. the Chief 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

Vasanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

O.Ukirapandian Vs the Corporation of Madurai

S.Jothi Vs the District Collector

M.a.Joe Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kds.Somasundaram, Vs the District Collector

N.Mariyappan Vs the Executive Officer