Disposed

The Dhanuskodi Puyalal Baathikapatta Meenava Maruvaazhvu Sangam v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC20 Jan 2021WP(MD)/321/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ under Article 226 seeking mandamus for the Director of Fisheries to dispose of an appeal under R. 14 of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1983, within two months, noting the respondent could not delay indefinitely pending a peace meeting.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the pending appeal within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

The Dhanuskodi Puyalal Baathikapatta Meenava… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.321 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.321 of 2021

¶5

The Dhanuskodi Puyalaal Baathikapatta Meenava

¶6

Maruvaazhvu Sangam,

¶7

Represented by its President,

Chelladurai.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Rep. by it Secretary,

¶13

Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The Director of Fisheries,

¶15

3^rd Floor, Integrated Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Building, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶16

3.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner U/s.14 of the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1983 dated 21.12.2020 within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Respondents : Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶21

2.The petitioner is said to have preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent has not disposed of the matter in view of the proposed convening of peace meeting between the rival groups.

¶22

3.Be that as it may, the second respondent cannot keep the appeal pending indefinitely. The second respondent shall dispose of the petition mentioned appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/2

¶24

W.P(MD)No.321 of 2021

¶25

have not gone into the merits of the matter. It is open to the second respondent to pass orders one way or the other.

¶26

4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶27

Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side)

¶28

ias

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary,

¶32

Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

2.The Director of Finishers,

¶34

3^rd Floor, Integrated Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Building, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶35

3.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-1817[F] dated 22/01/2021 )

¶37

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY,Advocate(SR-1520[F] dated 21/01/2021)

¶38

W.P(MD)No.321 of 2021 20.01.2021

¶39

(SV2)CO AP(02/02/2021) 2P 6C

¶40

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

¶41

2/2

The Dhanuskodi Puyalal Baathikapatta Meenava Maruvaazhvu Sangam v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Dhanuskodi Puyalal Baathikapatta Meenava Maruvaazhvu Sangam v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

Vallinayagam. K Vs The Assistant Director

Kumaresan Vs the District Collector

Kulaikathan, Vs the Co-Operative Tribunal

Siru Kuru Viyaparigal Nala Sangam Vs Commissioner of Town Panchayats

Swaminathan. V.R Vs The District Collector

Pallavi. K Vs The Axis Bank Ltd.