Disposed

M.S.Arasakumar, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP/1811/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to sanction expenditure incurred by the petitioner as an International Volunteer in the 2016 Rio Olympics. The Court directed the respondents to consider the pending representation and frame suitable rules within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing within four weeks.

M.S.Arasakumar, Vs The Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.04.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶5

W.P.No.1811 of 2017

¶6

M.S.Arasakumar ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Secretary to Government,
Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu,
No.116-A, Periyar EVR High Road,
Nehru Park,
Chennai 600 084 ... Respondents
* * *

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction the entire expenditure INR 1,72,993/- incurred by the petitioner as per the details given to them, as International Volunteer worked in the 2016 Summer Olympics held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 5th to 21st August 2016 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2016 within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to sanction the entire expenditure INR 1,72,993/incurred by the petitioner as a Volunteer in Summer Olympics 2016 held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 05.08.2016 to 21.08.2016, by considering his representation dated 28.11.2016.

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner was selected as a volunteer to work in Summer Olympics 2016 held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 05.08.2016 to 21.08.2016. Appreciating the petitioner's service as Volunteer, International Olympic Council and Rio Olympic Council issued Duty Accreditation and Participation Certificate to him. Since the grant was not sanctioned to the petitioner, he made a representation to the respondents on 28.11.2016, requesting them to sanction the entire expenditure incurred by him as an International Volunteer. However, the said representation was not considered so far. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶14

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2016 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the persons interested in this regard and by affording them an opportunity of personal hearing or virtual hearing, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶17

Post the matter on 21.06.2021 "for reporting compliance". Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

srn

¶19

¶20

The Secretary to Government, Youth Welfare and Sports Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶21

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

¶22

The Member Secretary,

¶23

Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu,

¶24

No.116-A, Periyar EVR High Road,

¶25

Nehru Park, Chennai 600 084.

¶26

W.P.No.1811 of 2017

¶27

PMK(CO) CSR 28.04.2021

¶28

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

M.S.Arasakumar, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Arasakumar, v. The Secretary to Government

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

Saraswathi, Vs The District Collector

M/s.Pps and Co. Engineering Contractor, Vs The superintending Engineer (H)

Mr. S.Shafi Mohammed Vs The District Collector

R.Parthiban Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its

Subramanian Maruthanayagam Vs The Registrar of Companies

M.Shanthi Vs Union of India