Disposed

Kannimariyal, v. the District Collector

Madras HC17 Apr 2018WP(MD)/7216/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-consideration of her representation seeking a Legal heir certificate by the Second Respondent. The Court directed the Second Respondent to consider the representation, give the petitioner a hearing, and take action within six weeks. The Court disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and take action within six weeks after giving due opportunity.

Kannimariyal, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.04.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.7216 of 2018

¶7

Kannimariyal ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2018.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radhakrishnan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents.

¶15

By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that his representation dated 10.03.2018 seeking for a issuance of a Legal heir certificate of late Chellathai, has not been considered by the second respondent till date and therefore, she has filed the present writ petition.

¶17

This Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is made, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same in one way or the other. Non-consideration of the same would amount to

¶18

¶19

dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and as such, this Court would be justified in invoking its powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated time.

¶20

In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ

¶21

petition, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2018 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such an exercise shall be done after giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶22

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶28

2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kamudhi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.S.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.61760.

¶30

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.62182.

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.7216 of 2018

¶32

17.04.2018

¶33

LS/TSG

¶34

RAM/RSK/SAR 2/07.05.2018/2P/5C

¶35

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

Kannimariyal, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannimariyal, 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

M.Vanthidevan, S/O.S.Marriappa Vs the District Collector

Vellai Vs the District Revenue Officer

V.Sangeetha Vs the Tahsildar

K.Iyyadurai, Vs the Executive Engineer

S.Muthu, Vs the District Collector

Neduchelian, S/O. Nagalingam, Vs the District Collector