Dismissed

Parasuraman M v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC24 Feb 2022WP(MD)/3513/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court disposed of the petition without calling upon respondents 2 and 3 to show cause, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and dispose of it within four weeks. The first respondent was directed to hear and record the evidence of the affected parties before passi

What did the court decide?

The first respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.03.2021 and dispose of it on merits within four weeks, after hearing both parties. Respondents 2 and 3 were dispe

Parasuraman M Vs the Joint Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3513 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 24.02.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3513 of 2022

M.Parasuraman

... Petitioner

/vs./

1.The Joint Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindiigul.

¶12

2.Balakrishnan,

¶13

The Managing Trustee,

¶14

Arulmighu Santhakula Sowmiya Narayana Karvaraya Kattalai, Palani Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶15

Rajaram ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to take necessary action on the basis of the representation of the Petitioner dated 12.03.2021 within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vinoharan

¶18

For R1 : Mr.P.Subbaraj Special Government Pleader

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission by dispensing with the notice on the respondents 2 and 3.

¶21

2.The learned Special Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent submits that appropriate orders will be passed on the representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2021 by the 1^st respondent, in the light of the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 16.03.2021.

¶22

3.Recording the same, this Court directs the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.03.2021 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the light of the information obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 16.03.2021. It is needless to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/2

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.3513 of 2022

¶25

state that before passing such orders, the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, who is likely to be affected by such orders, shall be heard. No costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

¶30

The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Dindiigul.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate ( SR-8646[F] dated 25/02/2022 )

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-8682[F] dated 25/02/2022 )

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.3513 of 2022 24.02.2022

¶34

tp(CO) TR(17.03.2022) 2P 4C

¶35

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

¶36

2/2

Parasuraman M v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasuraman M v. the Joint Commissioner

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

Elambarithi Vs the Commissioner

Nagarajan .P Vs the Joint Commissioner

Muthukrishnan.M.R Vs the Commissioner

Subbiah.T.R Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Vallinayagam K Vs the Commissioner

Natarajan K.S.R Vs the Commissioner