Disposed

K.Arumugam v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC13 Sept 2021WP/864/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to consider representations regarding appointment under the priority category. The Court observed that the petitioner's representations had not received proper attention and directed the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, to consider them within eight weeks. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Pe

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and dispose of the matter within eight weeks.

K.Arumugam Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.09.2021

¶3

 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

 W.P.No.864 of 2020

¶6

and

¶7

 W.M.P.No.1036 of 2020

¶8

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶9

K.Arumugam

¶10

 ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs

¶12

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary,

¶13

Revenue Department,

¶14

 Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶15

2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,

¶16

Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶17

3.The District Collector,

¶18

Thiruvallur District - 602 001.

¶19

4.The Tahsildar, Uthukottai Taluk, Thiruvallur - 602 026.

¶20

5.The District Employment Officer,
 Thiruvallur District - 602 001.... Respondents

¶21

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 10.08.2019
and followed the reminder dated 11.10.2019 seeking consideration
of appointment under priority category without reference to upper
age limit with a time to be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶22

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

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶24

 For Respondents: Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal

¶25

 Government Advocate

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Though the third respondent has filed a detailed counter, it
appears that the representations of the petitioner dated
15.05.2018, 10.08.2019 and 11.10.2019 have not been received
proper attention of the first respondent. Considering the same,
this writ petition is disposed by directing the first respondent
to consider the representations of the petitioner and dispose the
same within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶28

 Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

 Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

arb/nst

¶33

To

¶34

1.The Principal Secretary,

¶35

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶36

Revenue Department,

¶37

 Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶38

2.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,

¶39

Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶40

3.The District Collector,

¶41

Thiruvallur District - 602 001.

¶42

4.The Tahsildar, Uthukottai-Taluk,

¶43

Thiruvallur - 602 026.

¶44

5.The District Employment Officer, Thiruvallur & District - 602 001.

¶45

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.46196

¶46

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.46855

¶47

W.P.No.864 of 2020

¶48

PCH(CO)

¶49

SB(06/10/2021)

¶50

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

K.Arumugam v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Arumugam v. The State of Tamil Nadu

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

K.Sekar Vs The Commissioner of Revenue Administration

N.Vaithegi Vs The Chairman and Director General of Police

R.Rengaraj Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Dharmalingam Vs The Director

S. Subramani, Vs D.Kamalakkannan

C.Rajendiran Vs The Managing Director