Disposed

S.A. Lyiakikathali v. the Commissioner

Madras HC11 Jan 2017WP(MD)/519/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the respondents of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2016 for payment claimed for work done by him as a contractor within 12 weeks, without expressing any view on the merit of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 21.10.2016 and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks.

S.A. Lyiakikathali Vs the Commissioner — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:11.01.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.(MD)No.519 of 2017

¶4

S.A.Liyakikathali ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The Commissioner,

¶7

Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Alagarkoil Road,

¶8

Madurai – 625 002.

¶9

2.The Chief Accounts Officer(General),

¶10

Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Alagarkoil Road,

¶11

Madurai – 625 002. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 21.10.2016 claiming Rs.28,19,427/- for the work done by him as a Contractor within the time as stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. N.Tamilmani For Respondents : Mr.R.Prabhu Ramachandran

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Mr.R.Prabhu Ramachandran, learned counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶16

By consent of parties, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶17

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider his representation, dated 21.10.2016 through which he has claimed for payment of some amount said to have been not settled by the respondents in respect of certain works claimed to have been done by the petitioner as a Contractor.

¶18

This Court is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, except issuing a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.10.2016 and pass orders on the same, on merits and in accordance with law, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

¶20

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Alagarkoil Road, Madurai – 625 002.

¶27

2.The Chief Accounts Officer(General), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Alagarkoil Road,

¶28

Madurai – 625 002.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.N.Tamilmani,Advocate sr no 2303 +1cc to R.Prabhu Ramachandran,Advocate sr no 2143

¶30

¶31

ms skn mm 27 07 2017 2p 5c

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.519 of 2017

¶33

11.01.2017

¶34

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

S.A. Lyiakikathali v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.A. Lyiakikathali v. the Commissioner

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

S.Shanmugam Vs the District Collector

R.Brindha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The District Collector Vs P.Ragunanthkumar

V.Suresh Kumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Suresh Kumar, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V. Prakathesvaran Vs the Regional Passport Officer