Dismissed

Popular Muthiah v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Nov 2021WP(MD)/18195/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the installation of portraits of former Chief Ministers at Amma Unavagam outlets. The Court held that the matter involves a policy decision and dismissed the petition, noting the continued functioning of the scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus seeking reinstatement of portraits dismissed. No order as to costs.

Popular Muthiah Vs the Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.18195 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.18195 of 2021

Popular Muthaiah

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner,

The Commissioneriat of Municipal Administration, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

2.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

3.The District Collector / Special Officer, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to reinstall the portrait of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Hon'ble Selvi.J.Jayalalithaa and portrait of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Hon'ble Edappadi K.Palaniswami at all Amma Unavagangal run by the second respondent Corporation within stipulated time.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan

¶16

For R-1 and R-3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Standing Counsel for State. For R-2 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Standing Counsel.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition assail a policy decision of the Government. A representation may be addressed to the Government. If a policy decision had been taken, I am confident that the Government would have taken the same after due consideration of all relevant facts. The Courts cannot examine the same unless they are extremely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ perverse. It must be noted that the Government has not discontinued

¶19

1/2

¶20

W.P(MD)No.18195 of 2021

¶21

the functioning of Amma Unavagam. That is a significant relevant fact. This Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (W)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

Lm/Nsr

¶27

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶28

¶29

1.The Commissioner, The Commissioneriat of Municipal Administration, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

3.The District Collector / Special Officer, Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-34081[F] dated 11/11/2021 )

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.RAJA.KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-34151[F] dated 11/11/2021 )

¶33

W.P(MD)No.18195 of 2021 10.11.2021

¶34

RK(10/02/2022) 2P 6C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

Popular Muthiah v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Popular Muthiah v. the Commissioner

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

Muniyasamy.K Vs the District Revenue Officer

Jakir Usan Vs the District Collector

Sekar.K Vs the District Revenue Officer

Geetha.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Vidhya Vs the Commissioner

Packia Lakshmi.R Vs the District Registrar