Dismissed

State Bank of India v. M/s.Chennai Metropolitan Water

Madras HC16 Aug 2024WP/21552/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the non-disposal of representations made ten years prior, holding it too late to direct such consideration. However, the Court permitted the petitioner to file a fresh representation within two weeks, directing the respondent to decide it on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to make fresh representation to be decided within 8 weeks.

State Bank of India Vs M/s.Chennai Metropolitan Water — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.21552 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.08.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.21552 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014

¶7

State Bank of India, Represented by its Chief Manager, Liability Central Processing Centre, No. 787, Anna Salai, Chennai – 2. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply

¶10

& Sewerage Board, Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai – 2.

¶11

The Area Engineer, Area-VI, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai – 18.

¶12

M.Shoukath

¶13

Md. Hasmath

¶14

Md. Raffath

¶15

Azra ... Respondents

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.21552 of 2014

¶19

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to dispose of the representations dated 24.07.2014 and 02.08.2014 given by the petitioner-Bank in terms of order passed in W.P. No. 12692 of 2007 dated 24.01.2013 and in M.P. No. 1 of 2014 in W.P. No. 12692 of 2007 dated 04.07.2014.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. M.L.Ganesh

¶21

For Respondents : Mr. K.Vasanthamala, Standing Counsel (for R1 & R2) Mr. V.Shanmugam (for R3 & R5)

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to

¶24

dispose of the representations dated 24.07.2014 and 02.08.2014 given by the petitioner-Bank in terms of the order passed in W.P. No. 12692 of 2007 dated 24.01.2013 and in M.P. No. 1 of 2014 in W.P. No. 12692 of 2007 dated 04.07.2014.

¶25

It is seen from the records that the petitioner submitted

¶26

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

¶27

2/5

¶28

W.P.No.21552 of 2014

¶29

representations dated 24.07.2014 and 02.08.2014 and as such, now after a period of ten years, this Court cannot direct the second respondent to consider the said representations. Therefore, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits.

¶30

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the grievance of the petitioner still persists, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶31

16.08.2024

¶32

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation/Yes/No kv

¶33

3/5

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.21552 of 2014

¶36

¶37

The Managing Director, M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board,

¶38

Chennai – 2.

¶39

The Area Engineer, Area-VI, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board,

¶40

Chennai – 18.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.21552 of 2014

¶44

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

W.P.No.21552 of 2014

16.08.2024

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

¶49

5/5

State Bank of India v. M/s.Chennai Metropolitan Water

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s.Chennai Metropolitan Water

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

Tamil Ponni Export Enterprises Vs the Government of India

Anwar Vs The Commissioner

V.P.R.Blue Metals Vs the Commissioner

G.Jayaraman Vs the Commissioner

T. Paneerselvam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Krishnan Vs the State Transport