Disposed

M.Karuppasamy v. the Commissioner

Madras HC20 Jan 2017WP(MD)/905/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent corporation to consider a representation and refund a deposited amount. The Court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2016 and pass orders within twelve weeks.

M.Karuppasamy Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:20.01.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.905 of 2017

¶7

M.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2016 and direct the respondent to issue the deposit amount Rs.19,00,000/- which was deposited by the petitioner, in the name and style of M.Karuppasamy First Class Contractor in petitioner's contract Licence No. k.ngh.4/ 13408/ 16 in registered No.7 for the public work for the period of 2008 to 2016.

¶11

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondent : T.S.Mohamed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to consider his representation dated 14.12.2016 and consequentially for a direction to the respondent to refund the deposit amount.

¶14

2.The petitioner claims to have made some deposit with the respondent Corporation in respect of a contract which according to the petitioner, is liable to be refunded by the respondent and therefore, he made a representation dated 14.12.2016, which has not been considered so far.

¶15

3.This Court at this stage is not inclined to express any view on the claim made by the petitioner except by directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 14.12.2016 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

4.With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

rj2 To The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Aringar Anna Maligai, Madurai.

¶22

+1CC to Mr.G.Anbu Saravanan, Advocate Sr.No.3879 +1CC to Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Advocate Sr.No.3419 GJM/MR/VB/3.2.17-2P-2C

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.905 of 2017 20.01.2017

¶24

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

M.Karuppasamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Karuppasamy 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

C. Kannan, Vs the District Collector

M.Veerachamy Vs the District Collector

R.Selvi, W/O.Rajamanickam, Vs the Municipality

Muthuramalingam Vs the Thasildar

M.Kathikeyan, S/O.Melamalai Vs the Collector

R.Sethuraja, Vs the Commissioner