Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

A Kudiarasu vs The Tahasildar Avadi Taluk

Madras High Court|31 July, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31.07.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.No.19564 of 2017 A.Kudiarasu ...Petitioner v.
1 The Tahasildar Avadi Taluk, Avadi, Chennai.
2 The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai
3 The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Board Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 034 ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 63 of H.R. & C.E. Act within the time fixed by this court.
For Petitioner : Dr.G.Krishnamurthy For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai Additional Govt. Pleader - for R1 & R2 Mr.M.Maharaja Special Govt. Pleader - for R3 ORDER Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the 3rd respondent. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by him under section 63 of H.R. & C.E. Act within a time frame.
3. Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner has only given a representation dated 27.09.2016 to the 3rd respondent and that he has not filed any appeal before the 3rd respondent.
4. Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to file an appeal in proper format before the 3rd respondent and in such an event, the 3rd respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law, within a time frame.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I give liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal in proper format before the 3rd respondent, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the appeal to be filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent shall decide the same, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to all the interested parties, as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Index: Yes/No Rj To
1 The Tahasildar Avadi Taluk, Avadi, Chennai.
2 The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai
3 The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowment Board Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034 31.07.2017 M.DURAISWAMY,J.
Rj W.P.No.19564 of 2017 31.07.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

A Kudiarasu vs The Tahasildar Avadi Taluk

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2017
Judges
  • M Duraiswamy