Disposed

A. Veerappan v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Nov 2019WP/13602/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider his representation for the refund of the lease amount after the temporary suspension of coracle riding. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation and pass an order on merits within six weeks without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2016 and pass a suitable order on merits within six weeks.

A. Veerappan Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.13602 of 2016

¶6

A. Veerappan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Union Commissioner,
Pennaagaram Panchayat Union,
Pennagaram,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 1 st respondent to consider the
representation made by the petitioner dated 30.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.T.P. Kuilmozhi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy
Special Government Pleader [R1 & R2]
*****
ORDER

¶7

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2016 seeking for refund of the lease amount.

¶8

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted lease for operating “parisal” at Pannavadi between Kolathur and Nerupur in Dharmapuri District and he has paid the entire lease amount of Rs.7,30,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Thirty thousand only). All of a sudden, the 3^rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1869/2015/A1 dated 01.09.2015, ordered temporary suspension of the coracle riding in Pannavadi Parisal

¶9

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

¶10

Thurai. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents especially to the 3^rd respondent to refund the difference of lease amount of Rs.1,42,000/-. Even though the representation was made on 30.03.2016, the 3^rd respondent did not consider the petitioner's representation, hence, the writ petition has been filed.

¶11

Considering the limited prayer sought in the writ petition, without going into the merits of the case, the 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.03.2016 and pass suitable order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(JJ Act)
// True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mp
To
1. The District Collector,
Salem District, Salem.
2. The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri.
3. The Union Commissioner,
Pennaagaram Panchayat Union,
Pennagaram,
Dharmapuri District.

¶14

+1cc to Mr.S.T.Kuilmozhi, Advocate, SR.No.92862. +1cc to Government Pleader, SR.No.93368. W.P.No.13602 of 2016 VG II(CO) CSR: 13.02.2020

¶15

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

A. Veerappan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Veerappan 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

S.Tamil Selvi Vs The Chairman

R.P.Sarathy, Managing Trustee Vs the Special Commissioner and

Selvaraj Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Morgan Industries Ltd. Vs the Addl. Director General of

P.Chandrasekaran Vs M.K.Farooqui

C.L. Binny Vs the Secretary to Government