Disposed

E.Arun v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Apr 2021WP/19692/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the unlawful extension of PMAY benefits to a non-entitled third party and seeking action against alleged collusion. The High Court directed specific authorities to consider the representation and dispose of it with a reasoned order within eight weeks, disposing of the writ without costs.

What did the court decide?

Granted leave to file fresh representation; directed Respondents 2 to 4 to consider it and pass reasoned order within eight weeks.

E.Arun Vs The Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.19692 of 2020

¶8

E.Arun ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The Secretary to Government
Rural Development and Local Administration
Secretariat Chennai 600 009
2 The District Collector
Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
3 The Scheme Director
District Union agency Tiruvannamalai
District Tiruvannamalai
4 The Assistant Dirctor
Office of the Assistant Director Rural
Development and Local Administration
Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai Dsitrct
5 The Superiendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai Dsitrct Tiruvannamalai
6 The Inspector of Police
Thellar Police station Thellar Vandavasi Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai Dsitrct
7 C.Moorthy
8 Mr.Kuppusamy
9 Sankar ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07.11.2020 with in stipulated period and consequently direct respondents 1 to 6 to take proper legal action against the respondents 7 to 9.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban

¶12

For Respondents: Ms.R.J.Radhika, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 6.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)

¶15

The petitioner complains about the unlawful extension of benefits under the Prathan Manthri Awas Yojana Scheme (PMAY Scheme) to the seventh respondent. It is asserted by the petitioner that respondents 8 and 9 colluded with the seventh respondent and thereby enabled the seventh respondent to receive benefits under the PMAY Scheme, although such respondent is not entitled thereto. In spite of submitting a representation on 07.11.2020 to respondents 1 to 6, no action has been taken thereon.

¶16

Learned Government Advocate Ms.R.J.Radhika appears for respondents 1 to 6 and states that respondents 2 to 4 are the appropriate authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation.

¶17

Consequently, without examining the merits of the matter, the petitioner is granted leave to submit a fresh representation to respondents 2 to 4 herein. Such representation shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, respondents 2 to 4 are directed to consider such representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity to all affected parties including respondents 7 to 9 herein. Such reasoned order shall be issued within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the aforesaid representation. W.P.No.19692 of 2020 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

tar

¶23

To:

¶24

1 The Secretary to Government Rural Development and Local Administration Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶25

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

¶26

2 The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai

¶27

3 The Scheme Director
District Union agency Tiruvannamalai
District Tiruvannamalai
4 The Assistant Dirctor
Office of the Assistant Director Rural
Development and Local Administration
Cheyyar Tiruvannamalai Dsitrct
5 The Superiendent of Police
Tiruvannamalai Dsitrct Tiruvannamalai
6 The Inspector of Police
Thellar Police station Thellar Vandavasi
Tiruvannamalai Dsitrct
+1 cc to Mr. T.V.G.Kartheeban, Advocate Sr No. 22928
W.P.No.19692 of 2020
16.04.2021
GPL(CO)
RG.23.04.2021(2P/8C)

¶28

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

E.Arun v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Arun 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

G.Srinivasan, Be (Elecl)Llb Vs Union of India

M.G.R. Nagar Annex Welfare Asso Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

S.Balakrishnan Vs The District Collector

V.Tamilalagan Vs The Registrar General

M/S.Excel Vs the Authorised Officer

M.Raja Vs The Registrar General