Dismissed

G.Subramaniam v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC10 Sept 2019WP/27033/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court recorded that the petitioners failed to disclose other co-owners holding shares in the service connection. Consequently, the court held the petition unentertained but directed petitioners to submit a new representation with co-owner details and No Objection Certificates for the respondent to consider on merits. The present petition was thus disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for want of disclosure of co-owner details. Petitioners directed to submit fresh representation with details and No Objection Certificates for future consideration.

G.Subramaniam Vs The Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 10.09.2019

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.27033 of 2019

¶6

1.G.Subramaniam 2.G.Devaraj .. Petitioners /versus/

¶7

The Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sathyamangalam, Erode District. .. Respondent

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2019 on merits by considering the document submitted by the petitioner within the stipulated period.

¶9

For Petitioners :Mr.T.Gobinath
For Respondent :Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, St.C
O R D E R

¶10

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

¶11

Heard Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, learned standing counsel, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent and perused the affidavit.

¶12

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 14.08.2019 on merits by considering the document submitted by the petitioners within the stipulated period.

¶13

From the representation dated 14.08.2019 made by the petitioners herein to the respondent and the documents

¶14

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

¶15

enclosed, this Court finds that each of the petitioners claims 1/3^rd share in the service connection and seeks for inclusion of their names. However, neither in the writ petition nor in the representation given to the respondent, the parties have disclosed the other co-owners, who hold the remaining share.

¶16

In such circumstances, this Court is unable to entertain this writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioners herein to give representation to the respondent for inclusion of their names by furnishing details of the other coowners and if possible with No Objection Certificate from those co-owners for the respondent to consider the request. If such representation is made by the petitioners herein, the respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on merits.

¶17

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Insp.cell)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ari
To:
The Executive Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

¶18

+1cc to Mr.T.Gobinath, Advocate SR.No.78849

¶19

W.P.No.27033 of 2019 MG(CO) GMY(27/09/2019)

¶20

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

G.Subramaniam v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subramaniam v. The Executive Engineer

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

The Maritime Education and Vs The Director General of

P.Arumugam, Vs The District Collector

M.Arumugam, Vs The General Manager

K.G.Mannar Naidu Vs The Superintending Engineer

S.Malathi (MInor) Vs Tamilnadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University

P.Thanapal Vs Union of India