Disposed

K. Indurani v. the District Collector

Madras HC9 Dec 2022WP(MD)/19570/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench order in a writ petition regarding misappropriation of a cattle loan amount. The bench directed the District Collector to reconsider the petitioner's complaint without adjudicating merits and closed a connected petition later, correcting a clerical error in the named respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint dated 30.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits within four weeks.

K. Indurani Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :09.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013

K.Indurani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,

¶13

Theni District.

¶14

2.The Deputy General Manager,

¶15

State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Dr.Ambedkar Main Road,

¶16

Madurai.

¶17

3.Sathyamoorthy, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kottur Branch,

¶18

Theni District.

¶19

4.The President,

¶20

TID 110 Nandagopalan Colony Milk

¶21

Generation Cooperative Society,

¶22

Kottur, Theni District.

¶23

... Respondents

¶24

Page 1 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶27

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take action upon the 3^rd respondent for his misappropriation in the Cattle Loan Account of the petitioner and further direct the 3^rd respondent to disburse the amount sanctioned for the purchase of Cattle.

¶28

For Petitioner :Mr.K.Laxman forthwith Mr.G.Vishnuram For Respondents :Ms.G.Fajana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R1 :Mr.G.Radhakrishnan for R2 & R3

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The prayer in the writ petition seeking for a Mandamus to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take action upon the 3^rd respondent for the misappropriation in the Cattle Loan Account of the petitioner and further direct the 3^rd respondent to disburse the amount sanctioned for the purchase of Cattle.

¶31

2.The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the amount has been disbursed. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent had placed on record the payment of amount to the 4^th respondent, who in turn, had also supplied the Cattle to the petitioner.

¶32

Page 2 of 8

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶35

3.The aforesaid statement is recorded. But, however, without

¶36

going into the merits of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

4.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶39

09.12.2022

¶40

Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn

¶41

Page 3 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶44

¶45

1.The District Collector, Theni District.

¶46

2.The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Dr.Ambedkar Main Road, Madurai.

¶47

3.Sathyamoorthy, The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kottur Branch, Theni District.

¶48

4.The President,

¶49

TID 110 Nandagopalan Colony Milk Generation Cooperative Society, Kottur, Theni District.

¶50

Page 4 of 8

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶53

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶54

sbn

¶55

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013

¶56

09.12.2022

¶57

Page 5 of 8

¶58

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

¶59

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶61

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶62

The matter is listed today under the caption “for being mentioned”

¶63

at the instance of the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶64

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶65

3.The learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that this

¶66

Court directed the 2^nd respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner, instead of 1^st respondent in Paragraph No.3. Hence, request this Court to modify accordingly.

¶67

In view of the above, the Registry is directed to issue fresh

¶68

order copy after incorporating the following changes in the paragraph No.3 of the order made in W.P.(MD).No19570 of 2013 dated 09.12.2022:

¶69

Page 6 of 8

¶70

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

¶71

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶72

“ 3.The aforesaid statement is

¶73

recorded. But, however, without going into the merits of the case, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.09.2013 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

¶74

03.01.2023

¶75

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking order sbn

¶76

Page 7 of 8

¶77

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

¶78

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶79

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶80

sbn

¶81

W.P.(MD)No.19570 of 2013

¶82

03.01.2023

¶83

Page 8 of 8

¶84

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

K. Indurani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Indurani v. the District 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

B.Sangeethkumar Vs the District Collector

M. Amulnathan, Vs the District Collector

P.N.J. Nagarajan Vs the Commissioner

V. Jeevanandham, Vs the District Registrar

P.K. Saminathan Vs the District Collector

S. Subburayal, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation