Allowed

Esakiammal S v. The President

Madras HC12 Apr 2022WP(MD)/6734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a writ petition filing under Article 226. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to issue a house tax receipt after considering a representation. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands allowed; the respondent must consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it within two weeks.

Esakiammal S Vs The President — Madras HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P(MD).No.6734 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.04.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P(MD).No.6734 of 2022

¶4

S.Esakiammal ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The President, Vadakankulam Panchayat, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to receive house tax and property tax and issue receipt on the payment of the petitioner to the house bearing Door No.12/289 situated at Survey No.719/1A2 of Vadakankulam Panchayat, Tirunelveli District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 21.03.2022.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondent : Mr.T.Ajmal Khan

¶9

ORDER

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶11

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the representation of the petitioner, dated 21.03.2022 will be considered and disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that one M.Pushparaj, who filed W.P.(MD). No.9681 of 2021 has obtained an order, dated 04.06.2021. As per the order, the representation of the aforesaid M.Pushparaj has to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. The said M.Pushparaj has claimed rival ownership of the property. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents have rejected the representation of the said M.Pushparaj.

¶12

Recording the above submission, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶13

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶14

// True Copy //

¶15

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

1/2

¶19

W.P(MD).No.6734 of 2022

¶20

To The President, Vadakankulam Panchayat, Tirunelveli District.

¶21

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP. ( SR-18587[F] dated 13/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.C. HEROLD SINGH, Advocate ( SR-18907[F] dated 18/04/2022 )

¶22

W.P(MD).No.6734 of 2022 12.04.2022

¶23

RK(02/05/2022) 2P 4C

¶24

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

¶25

2/2

Esakiammal S v. The President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Esakiammal S v. The President

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

Ramesh.N Vs the Joint Commissioner

Palani Town Muslim Dharma Vs the Director

Muthar Mohideen Vs the Chairman

Sri Ammaluammal @ Vs the Commissioner

Mary Kasthuri Vs The Joint Commissioner

Rasu. N Vs The District Collector