Disposed

R.Asokan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC24 Jul 2024WP/9236/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A garments centre proprietor registered for MSME skill training sought a direction to authorities to inspect records and assess training conducted between December 2021 and June 2022 so funds could be sanctioned. The court, without expressing any opinion on merits, directed the second and third respondents to consider the representation within twelve weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2024 and pass orders within twelve weeks; no costs.

R.Asokan Vs the Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶6

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

Mr.R. Asokan

...Petitioner

The Secretary to Government Department of Industries and Commerce ( Micro. Small Medium Enterprises Department) Government of TamilNadu, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009

¶11

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation, Department of Employment and Training 8^th Floor, Chennai Metro Rail Limited Building ( Chennai Metros) No.327, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035.

¶12

The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Collectorate Master Plan Complex, Tiruvannamalai District – 606 604.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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

1/6

PRAYER:

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to inspect the records and assess the training given to the students as per the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Skill Development and to pass an order on the representation sent to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent dated 02.03.2024 and pass orders.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N. Kumar Rajan For Respondents : Mr.N. Naveen Kumar Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Mr.N. Naveen Kumar, Government Advocate takes notice for the

¶22

Respondents. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel appearing for either side, this petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶23

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the

¶24

second and third respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2024.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running a garments centre under the name and style as “A.S.Textile and Garments ” and giving tailoring training and the petitioner has registered the Garments with MSME skill training and the same was recognized by the Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation. The third respondent has

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

¶29

sanctioned the firm to give training vide order dated 30.08.2022 in R.C.No.2098/A3/2022. The training period was conducted from 15.12.2021 to 14.06.2022 and the said training was not inspected, due to which the respondents were unable to sanction the funds allotted to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that for the last two years, the respondents failed to assess the training and in their records it was shown as assessment not completed for the said period. Aggrieved over the same the petitioner made representation to the second and third respondents on 02.03.2024 and the same was not considered. Hence this petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice if this Court issues a direction to the second and third respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.03.2024 and pass orders.

¶31

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the

¶32

respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner will be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶33

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

¶35

Considering the facts of the case, this Court without expressing

¶36

any opinion on the merits of the case directs the second and third respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2024 and pass orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶37

24.07.2024

¶38

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order smn

¶39

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

¶41

¶42

The Secretary to Government Department of Industries and Commerce ( Micro. Small Medium Enterprises Department) Government of TamilNadu, Namakkal Kavignar Maaligai, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶43

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Skill Development Corporation, Department of Employment and Training 1^st Floor, Employment Office, Alandur Road,Thiru. Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶44

The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Collectorate Master Plan Complex, Tiruvannamalai District – 606 604.

¶45

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

¶47

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN ,J.

¶48

smn

¶49

W.P.No.9236 of 2024

¶50

24.07.2024 2/2

¶51

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Asokan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Asokan v. the Secretary to Government

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

The Managing Director Vs the Divisional Manager

Devakonar Vs the District Collector

K.Palaniswamy Vs the Public Information Officer

V.S.Rajasekaran Vs the District Collector

A.P.K.Vadivel Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Rajendiran Vs the Tahsildar