Disposed

K.Kamala, v. the Inspector of Panchayat and

Madras HC25 Sept 2020WP/19052/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2013 and pass orders on merits after giving notice to the petitioner and the fifth respondent within twelve weeks. The case was disposed of without adjudicating on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to consider the representation dated 19.02.2013 and pass orders on merits within twelve weeks.

K.Kamala, Vs the Inspector of Panchayat and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.19052 of 2013

¶6

K.Kamala ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Inspector of Panchayat & District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶9

2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶10

3.The Block Development Officer, Tharamangalam Panchayat Union, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶11

4.The President, Thuttampatti Village Panchayat, Thuttampatti and Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶12

5.Malar ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.02.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law within a time limit.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prakash for Mr.R.Saseetharan

¶15

For Respondents: Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari

¶16

Additional Government Pleader (R1 & R2) Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram (R3) Ms.P.Ramya (R4) R5 – no appearance

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2013 and pass orders in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶20

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has given her representation as early as on 19.02.2013, the 1^st respondent has not passed any order so far.

¶21

3.Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and Ms.P.Ramya, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2013 in accordance with law, after giving notice to the 5^th respondent.

¶22

4.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the Writ Petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, I direct the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2013 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner as well as to the 5^th respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.The Inspector of Panchayat & District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶31

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

¶32

The Assistant Director (Panchayats), Collectorate, Salem District, Salem.

¶33

The Block Development Officer, Tharamangalam Panchayat Union, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶34

The President, Thuttampatti Village Panchayat, Thuttampatti and Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶35

+1 CC to Mr.R.Saseetharan, Advocate sr 31444.
W.P.No.19052 of 2013
KJ(CO)
SP(20/10/2020)

¶36

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

K.Kamala, v. the Inspector of Panchayat and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kamala, v. the Inspector of Panchayat and

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

Mahadevan Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

S.Kaliya Perumal, Vs the District Registrar

A. Anandhan, Vs The District Collector

Mrs. Abidabi, Vs the Superintending Engineer

Rani Ammal, Vs The Sub Registrar

D.Selvaraj, Vs The District Collector