Dismissed

G.Sigamani v. The Collector

Madras HC7 Dec 2022WP/37080/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench order directing the Collector to consider the petitioners' representation regarding their application to the Tahsildar and pass suitable orders on merits within three months, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 13.06.2016 and pass suitable orders on merits after hearing, within three months.

G.Sigamani Vs The Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.37080 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No. 37080 of 2016

¶7

G.Sigamani

¶8

K.Vinayagam .. Petitioners Vs.

¶9

The Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore.

¶11

Arulmighu Kailasanathar Temple, Naduweerapattu, Cuddalore Taluk & District. (R3 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 24.10.2016 in W.P.No.37080/2016) .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation dated 13.06.2016 followed by the reminder dated 04.07.2016 given by the petitioners.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gururaj For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

1/4

¶16

For Respondent 3 : Mr.K.Karthikeyan GA (HR & CE)

W.P.No.37080 of 2016

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

¶21

pass orders on the representation dated 13.06.2016 followed by the reminder dated 04.07.2016 given by the petitioners.

¶22

2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents will consider the said representation of the petitioners and will pass suitable orders on merit.

¶23

3. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioners, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.06.2016 and pass suitable orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is

¶24

disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶25

07.12.2022

¶26

Index : Yes / No kk

¶27

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

2/4

W.P.No.37080 of 2016

The Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶32

The Tahsildar, Cuddalore Taluk, Cuddalore.

¶33

Arulmighu Kailasanathar Temple, Naduweerapattu, Cuddalore Taluk & District.

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P.No.37080 of 2016

¶37

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶38

¶39

W.P.No.37080 of 2016

¶40

07.12.2022

¶41

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

¶42

4/4

G.Sigamani v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sigamani v. The Collector

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

P. Devendran Vs the District Collector

S.Venkatesan Vs the Commissioner

Shoba Devi Vs the District Collector

R.Jothi Vs The State of TamilNadu

S.Allautheen Basha Vs The Commissioner

K.Kodeeswaran Vs The District collector