Disposed

Seevan Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Sept 2018WP(MD)/2816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to take action regarding a third respondent alleged to be acting contrary to law due to dual roles as a College Lecturer and Panchayat Secretary. The court directed the first respondent to investigate the representation within eight weeks and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to investigate representations about dual employment and take appropriate action within eight weeks.

Seevan Selvaraj Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.09.2018

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.[MD].No.2816 of 2018

¶6

Seevan Selvaraj : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Block Development Officer, Mudukulathur Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

3.S.Ragupathi : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent herein to take appropriate action against the third respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 09.10.2017 within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.D.Anbarasu For respondents 1&2 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.3 : No Appearance

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

¶14

The petitioner made a representation dated 09.10.2017 to the first respondent, inter alia , alleging that the third respondent is acting contrary to law. The representation made by the petitioner also includes the functioning of the third respondent as a College Lecturer while in service as the Panchayat Secretary.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon a communication sent by the Government College, Paramakudi, in this regard.

¶16

Considering the above, we direct the first respondent to look into the representation dated 09.10.2017 made by the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and take appropriate action either by himself or by directing the second respondent. Needful will have to be done within a period of

¶17

¶18

eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The Writ Petition stands disposed of on the above terms. No costs. SD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CO ) TRUE COPY

¶19

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CS III )

¶20

¶21

To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Block Development Officer, Mudukulathur Panchayat Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶22

1CC TO MR.VR. SHANMUGANATHAN, ADVOCATE SR 84286 ES PM SAR 3 3 10 2018 2P 4C

¶23

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.2816 of 2018 11.09.2018

¶24

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

Seevan Selvaraj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seevan Selvaraj v. the District 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

K. Sermakani, S/O. Kanthan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Veera Subramanian Vs the Bar Council of India

S.Poothathan, Vs the District Collector

S.Alavanthar, Vs the District Collector

Uthiraselvam, Vs the Inspector of Police

State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Lakshmi