Disposed

P.Raja v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Aug 2020WP/20203/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.6.2013 and pass orders on merits after giving notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 within twelve weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 17.6.2013 and pass orders on merits after notice to petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 within twelve weeks.

P.Raja Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.08.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.20203 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 P. Raja ... Petitioner

¶6

v.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Managing Director,
The Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Commissioner,
Thiruverkadu Municipality,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruverkadu,
Chennai – 600 077.
5.Durai
6.Damodaran ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.6.2013 by taking appropriate legal action against the 5^th and 6^th respondents in accordance with law to secure the ends of justice.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. A. Ramesh For Respondents : Mrs. P. Rajalakshmi

¶9

Addl. Govt. Pleader – for R1 to R3 Mr. R. Mohandoss – for R4 Mr. R.Vivekanandan – for R5

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation dated 17.6.2013, by taking appropriate legal action against the respondents 5 and 6, in accordance with law.

¶13

Mr. A. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has given his representation as early as on 17.6.2013, the 4^th respondent has not passed any order sofar.

¶14

Mr. R. Mohandoss, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submitted that a direction may be issued to the 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.6.2013 and pass orders, in accordance with law.

¶15

Mr. R.Vivekanandan, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 17.6.2013, after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6.

¶16

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 4^th respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.6.2013 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 and 6, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

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

¶20

Rj
To
1. The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Local Administration,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Managing Director,
The Municipal Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.
4. The Commissioner,
Thiruverkadu Municipality,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077.
+1 cc to Mr.Mohandoss, Advocate Sr.No. 26157
W.P.No.20203 of 2013 and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
AD(CO)
RMP(17/08/2020)

¶21

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

P.Raja v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Raja v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

R.Rangasamy, Vs the Assistant Engineer

P.Senthilkumar Vs the Commissioner

K.Sridharan Vs the Junior Engineer

Mrs. Pavalakodi, Vs the Principal Secretary and

A.Sathiq Basha Vs The Chairman

S.Balakrishnan, Vs the District Collector