Disposed

M.Manoharan v. The Thasildar

Madras HC10 Jan 2020WP/556/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, M.Manoharan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to resolve a discrepancy in the spelling of his father's name in revenue records. The court directed the respondent to issue notice, conduct an inquiry, and pass orders with reasons within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to issue notice, conduct an inquiry into the petitioner's father's name discrepancy, and pass final orders with reasons on or before 29.02.2020.

M.Manoharan Vs The Thasildar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 10.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.556 of 2020

¶6

M.Manoharan

¶7

The Tahsildar, Valparai Taluk, Office of the Thasildar, Valparai, Coimbatore District.

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 21.11.2019 in accordance with law within a specified time limit as may be fixed by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Dr.P.Vasudevan

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.G.Rajesh Government Advocate

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The writ petition has been filed in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondent namely the Tahsildar, Valparai Taluk, Valparai, Coimbatore District to dispose of the representation dated 21.11.2019.

¶14

The petitioner has a peculiar problem in that his father had been alternatively called as Muniappan @ Mariappan. Therefore, he claims to call his father's name as Muniappan @ Mariappan. However, in the revenue records, the petitioner's father had been called as Mariappan and in the records of his brother, their father has been called as Muniappan. It would only be in the interest of everybody generally, and more particularly for the petitioner and his brother that his father's name is determined and any one common name should be given or in the alias form. For this purpose, he had given

¶15

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

¶16

representation to the respondent namely the Tahsildar, Valpari, Coimbatore Distric, dated 21.11.0219.

¶17

The respondent/Tahsildar, Valpari Taluk, Coimbatore District is requested to issue notice to the petitioner and to his other family members, enquire into the issue, look into the records and thereafter pass considered orders with reasons.

¶18

In the first instant, notice may be issued by the respondent for appearance of the petitioner and his family members before him on 05.02.2020, and after enquiry, pass final orders on or before 29.02.2020.

¶19

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶22

//True copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

vum

¶25

¶26

The Tahsildar, Valparai Taluk, Office of the Thasildar, Valparai, Coimbatore District.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.P.Vasudevan, Advocate SR.No.2875

¶28

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.3531

¶29

W.P.No.556 of 2020

¶30

NMI(CO) GMY(22/01/2020)

¶31

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

M.Manoharan v. The Thasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Manoharan v. The Thasildar

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

K.Thulasiraman Vs The Assistant Pasport Officer

M/s.S.v.Projects Vs University of Madras

E.Thiruvengadam, Vs The Sub Registrar

Balasubramaniam Rajalakshmi Vs Union of India

Balasubramaniam Rajalakshmi Vs Union of India

P.Mohammed Hussain, Vs The District Collector