Dismissed

S.a.Kuppusamy, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC8 Jun 2018WP/12372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Article 226 sought a direction to various government respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018. The Court disposed of the petition by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the representation within six weeks from the date of receipt.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks.

S.a.Kuppusamy, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.06.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Ms.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶7

W.P. No.12372 of 2018

¶8

S.A.Kuppusamy .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Secretary to Govt.,
PWD (No.1) Dept., Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruchengode, Namakkal District.
5.The Project Director,
National Highways, Thiruvakoundanur
Post, Junction Main Road,
Salem 636 005.
6.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Mohanur Road, Namakkal.
7.The District Forest Officer,
Collectorate, Namakkal.
8.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources,
Trichy zone,
Trichy.

¶9

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

¶10

9.Sri.K.Shanmugam, President, Sri Vinayagar Siru Vivasayigal Neeretru Paasana Sangam, 77, Pandamangalam Road, Pothanur, Namakkal District.

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 8 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018 within a stipulated period.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan 1 to 4, 7 & 8 Govt. Pleader O R D E R (Made by Ms.Indira Banerjee, Chief Justice)

¶14

After hearing the respective parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent no.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2018. A copy of the respondent shall be forwarded to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 shall take such decision on the representation in accordance with law, as he might deem appropriate, within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt thereof. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

sra

¶18

¶19

1.The Secretary to Govt. of Tamilnadu, PWD (No.1) Dept., Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶20

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

¶21

2.The District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3.The District Revenue Officer,
Namakkal.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thiruchengode, Namakkal District.
5.The Project Director,
National Highways, Thiruvakoundanur
Post, Junction Main Road,
Salem 636 005.
6.The Superintending Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Mohanur Road, Namakkal.
7.The District Forest Officer,
Collectorate, Namakkal.
8.The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Water Resources,
Trichy zone,Trichy.
+1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate in sr.no.35997
+1cc to Government Pleader in sr.no.36042
W.P.No.12372 of 2018
sr(co)
nr 18/06/2018

¶22

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

S.a.Kuppusamy, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.a.Kuppusamy, v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

M/S Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Vs M/S Baby Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. K. Rajendran Vs M/S. Tamil Nadu State

K.Shanmugam Vs The State of Tamilnadu

International Sri Vaishnava Vs The Chief Secretary

Saravanan, S/o.Periasamy Vs The District Collector

A.K.Velan, Vs The District Collector