Disposed

O.M.Ravi @ Rajini v. the District Collector of

Madras HC20 Aug 2020WP/31974/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent (District Collector) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2013 on merits within twelve weeks, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

1st respondent directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2013 and dispose of same on merits within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

O.M.Ravi @ Rajini Vs the District Collector of — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.08.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.31974 of 2013

¶6

O.M.Ravi @ Rajini ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector of Salem, Collectorate, Salem.

¶9

2.The Commissioner for Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department,

¶10

Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

¶11

3.The Director of Local Fund Audit Department, Kuralagam, Chennai – 108.

¶12

4.R.Dhanapal ...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 and pass orders on merits by disposing the written representation made by the petitioner on 13.11.2013 within a stipulated time.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Siddeswaran

¶15

For Respondents: Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari,

¶16

Additional Government Pleader (R1 to R3) R4 – not ready in notice

¶17

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on his representation dated 13.11.2013 within a time frame.

¶18

2.The petitioner has given a representation dated 13.11.2013 to the 1^st respondent to take action against the 4^th respondent.

¶19

3.Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the 4^th respondent had already retired from service in the year 2013 itself. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader

¶20

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

¶21

submitted that in any event the 1^st respondent may be directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a time frame.

¶22

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the 1^st respondent may be directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.

¶23

5.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 13.11.2013 and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

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

¶25

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The District Collector of Salem,
Collectorate, Salem.
2.The Commissioner for Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj Department,
Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3.The Director of Local Fund Audit Department,
Kuralagam, Chennai – 108.
+1cc to The Government Pleader, SR.27418
W.P.No.31974 of 2013
PP(CO)
VS 27.08.2020

¶26

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

O.M.Ravi @ Rajini v. the District Collector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.M.Ravi @ Rajini v. the District Collector of

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

S.Rajasekaran Vs Corporation of Chennai

R.Prabakaran, Vs the Sub Registrar

Mrs.a.Meenakshi, Vs the District Collector

L.M.Mohamed Musadick Vs The Sub Registrar

Dr.M.P.Kumar Vs the Chairman

K.Thangavel Vs the Tahsildar