Disposed

G.M.Latha, v. the Principal Secretary/

Madras HC13 Feb 2019WP(MD)/8445/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing authorities to consider the petitioner's fresh representation within two weeks and decide on merits within four weeks, without adjudicating the merits of the case itself.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation within two weeks; Second Respondent to decide on merits within four weeks.

G.M.Latha, Vs the Principal Secretary/ — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P(MD) No.8445 of 2016

¶7

G.M.Latha ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Directorate of Rural Development and Village Panchayath, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet,

¶10

Chennai-15.

¶11

2.The Director,

¶12

Directorate of Rural Development and Village Panchayath, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet,

¶13

Chennai-15.

¶14

3.The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider and dispose of petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2016.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand Government Advocate for R.1 and R.2 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran for R.3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider and dispose of petitioner's representation dated 09.04.2016.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶20

¶21

submit that due to efflux of time, the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the authorities with a fresh representation.

¶22

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the authorities be directed to consider such representation within the fixed time.

¶23

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the petitioner's case, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation by enclosing relevant documents along with a copy of this order to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such receipt, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the interested parties, if there are no other legal impediments, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶24

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶25

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶28

¶29

1.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner, Directorate of Rural Development and Village Panchayath, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶30

2.The Director,

¶31

Directorate of Rural Development and Village Panchayath, Panagal Buildings, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶32

3.The Accountant General Office of the Accountant General, 361, Anna Salai, Chennai-18. +1cc to Mr.R.Anand, Advocate, SR.No.47228 +1cc to Mr.P.Gunasekaran,Advocate, SR.No.46868

¶33

W.P(MD) No.8445 of 2016 13.02.2019

¶34

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

¶35

SP/22.04.2019/2P/6C

G.M.Latha, v. the Principal Secretary/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.M.Latha, v. the Principal Secretary/

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

K.Muthukrishnan Vs the Project Director

Dr.G. Natarajan M.D., Vs the Director of Medical

T.Jaya Angel Vs the Managing Director

K.R. Muthukumar Vs the Managing Director

J. Sulochana Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Stella Mary,W/O.Late Arputha Vs the Managing Director