Disposed

L.Sugumaran v. The District collector

Madras HC13 Feb 2020WP/27527/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the District Collector and Public Works Department officials to dispose of pending representations for permission to open a xerox shop in an office complex. The Court directed the Executive Engineer to inquire and pass orders by 31.03.2020 before discharge.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus issued to the 3rd respondent to enquire, determine obstructions, and pass orders on the petitioner's representation by 31.03.2020.

L.Sugumaran Vs The District collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 13.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.27527 of 2019

¶6

L.Sugumaran .. Petitioner

¶7

..Vs..

¶8

The District Collector,

¶9

Office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram District – 631 501.

¶10

The Supervising Engineer, Public Work Department, Building (Architect and Maintenance) Circle, Chepauk, Chennai – 05.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Building (Architect and Maintenance) Circle, Kancheepuram – 631 501.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 23.01.2017 and 24.07.2019 now pending before the 2^nd respondent within stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mrs.I.Manjumadevi

¶15

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi,

¶16

learned Additional Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner had given a representation on 24.07.2019 to the District Collector, Kancheepuram District seeking permission to run a Xerox and Typing shop in the office of the Tahsildar, Thirukazhikundram. It is stated that earlier the petitioner had also given a representation on 23.01.2017.

¶19

1/3

¶20

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

¶21

Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶22

The petitioner claims that it would be beneficial for the petitioner to keep a small place i.e 2.15 m X 2.15 m for the Xerox shop. It is also stated that the Supervising of Engineer, Public Works Department, Chepauk was in the process of fixing the rent at Rs.333/- per month.

¶23

In view of the fact that the representation of the petitioner has been pending in the Office of the District Collector, Kancheepuram for the past four months, a mandamus is issued to the 3^rd respondent namely the Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Kancheepuram to enquire the petitioner, if place is available and determine whether it will obstruct the place or the vehicular traffic or parking place inside the office of the Tahsildar office and whether it would cause obstruction to the general public, then pass orders on the representation of the petitioner on or before 31.03.2020.

¶24

With the above observation, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vum
To
1. The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Kancheepuram District – 631 501.
2. The Supervising Engineer,
Public Work Department,
Building (Architect and Maintenance) Circle,
Chepauk, Chennai – 05.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Work Department,
Building (Architect and Maintenance) Circle,
Kancheepuram – 631 501.

¶25

2/3

¶26

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

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.E.D.Sethupathi Advocate sr12341

¶28

+1 cc to Government pleader sr12435

W.P.No.27527 of 2019

mg(co)
aa20/02/2020

3/3

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

L.Sugumaran v. The District collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Sugumaran v. The District collector

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

Abraham Moses Paul Raj Vs The Union of India

V.Veeramani Vs The Tahsildhar

Abraham Moses Paul Raj Vs The Union of India

A5.MURUGESAN Vs the State Rep. by

Swisscon Steels (India) Private Limited, Vs Union of India

Syed Shah Vajiuddi Avulya Vs The Chief Executive Officer