Allowed

R.Latha v. The District Colletor

Madras HC11 Dec 2019WP/16909/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition under Article 226 for enforcement of the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme. The petitioner filed an application and paid the requisite fee before her daughter's marriage. The lower authority refused sanction citing a marriage contractor's receipt instead of the marriage certificate. The High Court held the marriage certificate is superior evi

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to sanction and pay marriage assistance of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 07.01.2020.

R.Latha Vs The District Colletor — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.12.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

Writ Petition No. 16909 of 2019

¶6

R.Latha 2. R.Vedalakshmi (impleaded as per order dated 19/11/2019 made in WMP 32686/19 in W.P.No.16909 of 2019) ...Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Villupuram.

¶9

2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Villupuram. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner the marriage assistance amount of Rs.50,000/- and gold coin of 8 grms under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme implemeted by the Social Welfare Department of Government of Tamil Nadu.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Suresh N. For Respondents: Mr.R.Govindasamy, Special Government Pleader

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The petitioner had given an application on 02.11.2015, after paying a sum of Rs.100/- and acknowledgement for receipt of application for Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme by Receipt No.2015/0301/07/005435 was issued. Subsequently, the marriage of R.Viswanathan with the daughter of the petitioner R.Vedhalakshmi was conducted on 06.11.2015. The marriage was also registered and extract of a copy of registration by the Marriage Registrar Officer has also been produced in the typed set, in which the date of marriage was solemnized given on 06.11.2015.

¶14

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

¶15

Mr.R.Govindasamy, the learned Special Government Pleader, however relied on the receipt of the advance given to the marriage hall. It is stated that the marriage was not conducted on 06.11.2015. When an Official record, particularly a marriage extract, issued by the Marriage Registrar is produced, a normal presumption can be drawn that the said document being a public document, is a true document and contains the correct facts.

¶16

This Court does not know why the respondents have gone to the Marriage contractor to get a receipt, which receipt cannot even looked into by this Court, when the marriage certificate is produced. The copy of guidelines is also produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. It is stated that assistance for marriage should be given atleast 40 days prior to the Marriage and in some circumstances, atleast 1 day prior to marriage. In the present case, the application was given 4 days prior to the marriage, but that cannot be a reason for denying the relief. Since, the writ petition has been filed in the nature of the mandamus directing sanction and to pay the petitioner, the marriage assistance, the writ petition is allowed and direction is issued to the respondent to sanction on or before 07.01.2020, the marriage assistance amount of Rs.50,000/- .

¶17

It is to be mentioned that every writ petition is not a challenge or question of the acts of the Legislature. The Legislature passes beneficial schemes for the benefit of the citizens. When officials like the second respondent namely The District Social Welfare Officer prevent the said schemes from reaching the beneficiaries, writ petitions of this nature are filed. It is hoped that the office of the learned Special Government Pleader would take a practical view on this sought of writ petitions.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.The District Collector, Villupuram. 2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Villupuram. +1cc to Mr.N.Suresh, Advocate Sr.103628 +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.103642

¶25

Writ Petition No. 16909 of 2019

¶26

sr[co] srg 10/02/2020

¶27

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

R.Latha v. The District Colletor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Latha v. The District Colletor

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

V.M.Shamshudeen, Vs Government of India

Mohamed Rafi Vs The State Rep. by

S.P.Natarajan, Vs The District Collector

Mr.M.Narayanan, Vs The District Collector

G.Kousalya Vs The Inspector General

K.Balasubramanian, Vs The Government of Puducherry