Disposed

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

Madras HC20 Jan 2017WP(MD)/911/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order addressed a writ petition seeking a duplicate ration card. The court directed the respective statutory authorities to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass orders on merits within eight weeks, without expressing an opinion on the claim itself.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to dispose of the pending representation for the duplicate family card within eight weeks.

M.Kathikeyan, S/O.Melamalai Vs the Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.01.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.911 of 2017

¶5

M.Karthikeyan ... Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Collector, Collectorate, Karur District.

¶7

2.District Supply Officer, Collectorate, Karur District.

¶8

3.Taluk Supply Officer, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to issue duplicate family card for the missing family card bearing No. 15/G/0217883 with regard to 2005-2009 attached to the ration shop Thottakurichi colony of Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

¶10

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶11

For R1 and R2 : A.Muthukarupan (Additional Government Pleader)

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to issue duplicate family card bearing No.15/G/0217883 with regard to 2005-2009 attached to the ration shop Thottakurichi colony of Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

¶14

2.It is seen that the petitioner has already made several representations seeking for issuance of duplicate family card. Such representations are said to be still pending with the respondents. Therefore, it is for the respondents, more particularly, respondents 2 and 3, to consider the request of the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any view on the claim made by the petitioner, as it is for the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the same and pass orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as stated supra.

¶15

¶16

3.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl Side)

¶18

/True Copy/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

1.The Collector, Collectorate, Karur District.

¶22

2.District Supply Officer,

¶23

Collectorate, Karur District.

¶24

3.Taluk Supply Officer, Manmangalam Taluk, Karur District.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.V.Venkataseshan, Advocate, Sr.No.3441 +1cc to M/S THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SR.NO. 3403

¶26

rj2

¶27

AE/SUMMS/01.02.2017/2p/6c

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.911 of 2017

¶29

20.01.2017

¶30

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kathikeyan, S/O.Melamalai v. the 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

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.Karuppasamy Vs the Commissioner

R.Sethuraja, Vs the Commissioner