Allowed

The Commissioner, v. N.Balamurugan

Madras HC29 Nov 2022WA(MD)/1437/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal by the Dindigul Corporation challenged a Single Judge's order directing the Corporation to consider its own appointment proposal. The High Court disposed of the appeal by upholding the directive to consider the proposal on merits within six weeks and close the connected petition.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to consider the appellant's proposal on merits and communicate the decision within six weeks. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The Commissioner, Vs N.Balamurugan — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.1437 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD) No.5897 of 2021

¶7

The Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul District. ... Appellant/3^rd Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.N.Balamurugan ... 1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (MAWS),

¶11

Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk,

¶14

Chennai – 600 005.

¶15

... Respondents 2 and 3/ Respondents 1 and 2

¶16

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 01.04.2021 made in W.P.(MD) No.7456 of 2021 and to allow the appeal.

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.J.Lawrance Standing Counsel

¶18

1/4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2021

¶21

For 1^st Respondent : Mr.S.Vinayak For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader * * *

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J. )

¶24

The Writ Appeal has been filed by the

¶25

appellant/third respondent challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.7456 of 2021, dated 01.04.2021, by which, the learned Single Judge has directed the first respondent to consider the proposal sent by the third respondent dated 07.06.2019, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

¶26

Mr.J.Lawrance, learned Standing Counsel,

¶27

appearing for the appellant, Mr.S.Vinayak, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶28

Though the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the second respondent herein

¶29

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2021

¶31

to consider the proposal sent by the appellant herein dated 07.06.2019, on the ground that the said proposal has nothing to do with the claim of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner and the same was sent only for permission or relaxation to make appointments on compassionate grounds in the appellant Corporation, after arguing for some time, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has no objection for the 2^nd respondent to consider the appellant's proposal on its own merits as directed by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

Recording the same, this Writ Appeal is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the proposal sent by the appellant dated 07.06.2019, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision taken to the appellant and the 1^st respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶33

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 29.11.2022

¶34

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No sj

¶35

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.A.(MD)No.1437 of 2021

¶37

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

¶38

and

¶39

J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶40

¶41

¶42

1.The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (MAWS),

¶43

Chennai – 600 009.

¶44

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk,

¶45

Chennai – 600 005.

¶46

W.A.(MD) No.1437 of 2021

¶47

29.11.2022

¶48

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Commissioner, v. N.Balamurugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner, v. N.Balamurugan

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

A.Gurusamy, Shop No. 8,WESTERN Vs the Joint Commissioner/

S.Premkumar Vs the Commissioner of Revenue

Muthuraj, Vs the District Collector

M.Chandramohan, Vs the Tamilnadu Home Department

The Tahsildar, Vs Babu

M.Kalaiselvi Vs the District Collector