Allowed

V.Janakiraman, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC26 Apr 2018WP(MD)/9658/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, by consent, dismissed the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-disposal of a revision petition. The Court directed the first respondent to dispose of Revision Petition No. 07 of 2016 on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of Revision Petition No. 07 of 2016 on its merits within eight weeks from receipt of the order copy.

V.Janakiraman, Vs the District Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.04.2018 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.(MD) No. 9658 of 2018

V.Janakiraman

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶8

M.T.Shankar

¶9

Thangasamy ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition No. 7/2016 pending before the first respondent within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Pandarasamy For Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.Anand Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Mr.V.Anand learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the first respondent. Notice to the respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with in view of nature of the order to be passed by this Court.

¶14

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

¶15

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner to dispose the revision petition No. 07 of 2016 before the first respondent has not been considered by the respondent till date and therefore, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶16

4. 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 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 dereliction of ordinary duties of their office and as such, this Court would be justified in invoking its powers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct them to dispose the revision petition within a stipulated time.

¶17

¶18

5. In view of the limited prayer sought for in this writ petition, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to dispose the revision petition no.07 of 2016 on its own merits and take further action in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

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

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

To:

¶25

The District Revenue Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.C. Pandarasamy, Advocate Sr.No.64598 AAV

¶27

VB/KKR/SAR1/15/05/2018/2P/3C

¶28

W.P.(MD) No. 9658 of 2018

¶29

26.04.2018

¶30

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

V.Janakiraman, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Janakiraman, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Akbar Ali, Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative

V.Srinivasan, S/O.Virumandi, Vs the Regional Passport

Kaliyappan, Vs the District Collector

M.Balakrishnan, Vs the Commissioner(Land Survey)

M.Suresh, S/O.Sundar Raj, Vs the Sub Registrar

S.Josphin Vanitha Rani, Vs the Joint Director of