Disposed

A.Krishnadasan v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Apr 2022WP/7355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to set up E-Service centres. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and decide on setting up the centres within four weeks, disposing of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding E-Service centres and decide within four weeks.

A.Krishnadasan Vs The Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.04.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.P.No.7355 of 2022

¶8

A.Krishnadasan ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Secretary to Government Information Technology Department Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector Tiruvallur District.

¶12

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable T.V. Corporation Limited Durga Towers, Marshalls Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008.

¶13

The Director of e-Governance/Chief Executive Officer Tamil Nadu e-Governance Agency Chennai-2. ...Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 4 herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 17.02.2022 and take appropriate action to set up an E-Sevai Maiyam (E-Service Centre) for the benefit of the general public.

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Naresh Kumar

¶16

For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader For Respondent 1 and 2

¶17

Mr.Abdul Saleem For Respondent 3

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶21

The writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate direction for setting up of E-Service centres for the benefit of the public at the places indicated by the petitioner.

¶22

2.Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that, as per the policy decision, it is not only that the E- Service centres are being operated by them, but, even by the private persons. Presently, five private persons are operating E-Service centres near the area in question. In any case, the matter would be considered in reference to the representation made by the petitioner within a period of two weeks and thereupon, the decision would be conveyed to the petitioner.

¶23

3.In view of the submissions made above, let the respondents take a decision in reference to the prayer made by the petitioner for opening of E-Service centres at the location given therein. The decision on the representation of the petitioner would be taken within a period of four weeks from today and the result thereof be conveyed to the petitioner.

¶24

4.With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

kpl/drm

¶30

To:

¶31

The Secretary to Government Information Technology Department Fort St. George, Secretariat,

¶32

Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

The District Collector

¶34

Tiruvallur District.

¶35

The Managing Director

¶36

Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable T.V. Corporation Limited Durga Towers, Marshalls Road, Egmore

¶37

Chennai – 600 008.

¶38

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

¶39

The Director of e-Governance/Chief Executive Officer Tamil Nadu e-Governance Agency Chennai-2.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.Abdul Saleem, Advocate, S.R.No.23767

¶41

+1cc to Mr.Nareshkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.23139

¶42

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.23248

¶43

W.P.No.7355 of 2022

¶44

MG(CO) RGA(11/04/2022)

¶45

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

A.Krishnadasan v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Krishnadasan v. The Secretary to Government

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

Mrs.Bhargavi Reddy Vs the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Drat)

Rev Dr. Issac Aiyya Vs The Director

S.Sivaranjani Vs The Registrar General, High Court of Madras

P.Govindan Vs B.Ramakrishna Reddy

Alison Pathuma Majeed Khan Vs Uniont of India

S.Annamalai Vs The Principal Secretary to Government