Disposed

R.Sundararajan, v. the Managing Director

Madras HC13 Apr 2022WP/14441/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.12.2013 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within three months, holding that non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty by a statutory authority. The petition was disposed of with no expression of opinion on the claim's merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.12.2013 on its merits and pass appropriate orders within three months.

R.Sundararajan, Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

W.P.NO.14441 OF 2014

R.Sundararajan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., No.91, St. Mary's Road, Chennai - 18. .. Respondent

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 13.12.2013 within a date fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondent on 13.12.2013 seeking payment of certain dues payable by the respondent. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondent to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶16

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a

¶17

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

¶18

direction to the respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.12.2013 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 this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that it is open to the respondent to consider the same on its own merits.

¶19

4. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

mmi

¶25

¶26

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., No.91, St. Mary's Road, Chennai - 18.

¶27

W.P.No.14441 of 2014

¶28

MG(CO) PM/26/04/2022

¶29

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

R.Sundararajan, v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sundararajan, v. the Managing Director

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

C.Kamalakannan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

A.Thangavel, Vs The Chairman

Sakunthala Govindan, Vs the Regional Provident Fund

The Managing Director Vs the Presiding Officer

The Management,C2075 Chakkaramallur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Socity. Vs R.Jeevarathinam

S.Kalidasan, Vs the Tamil Nadu State