Disposed

Chellam .C v. The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department

Madras HC2 Mar 2023WP(MD)/1633/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an imageURLMP(Indian provident fund) under Article 226, the petitioner sought a refund of wrongly deducted GST for works under an AGAMT scheme. The court directed the second respondent to dispose of the representation on merits within eight weeks without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to dispose of the representation on merits within eight weeks.

Chellam .C Vs The Rural Development and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1633 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.1633 of 2023

¶7

C.Chellam ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Rep. By its Commissioner, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶10

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli.

¶11

3.The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli.

¶12

4.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Panchayat Union, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli-02. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 4

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.1633 of 2023

¶17

to refund the GST to a tune of Rs.70941/- wrongly deducted by the fourth respondent for the works carried out under AGAMT II 2021-22 scheme for laying paver block pavement at Indhra Nagar Puthu Colony 3^rd street in Raja Vallipuram Panchayat in Palayamkottai Panchayat Union and pass orders within a time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶22

The second respondent is directed to dispose of the petition mentioned

¶23

representation on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. It is open to the second respondent to pass order one way or other.

¶24

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶25

02.03.2023

¶26

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi

¶27

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

¶28

2/4

¶29

W.P(MD)No.1633 of 2023

¶30

¶31

1.The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Rep. By its Commissioner, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

¶32

2.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli.

¶33

3.The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Collectorate Campus, Tirunelveli.

¶34

4.The Block Development Officer, Village Panchayat, Panchayat Union, Palayankottai, Tirunelveli-02.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶36

W.P(MD)No.1633 of 2023

¶37

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶38

rmi

¶39

W.P(MD)No.1633 of 2023

¶40

02.03.2023

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Chellam .C v. The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellam .C v. The Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A 1303 Madurai Mills Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs The District Collector

Rajeshwaran Vs The Tahsildar

Viyakula Arpudha Latha Vs The Tahsildar

Valli Vs The Sub Registrar

Rabiath Basariya .a Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Sathappa Chindambaram. U Vs The Commissioner