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

Thilagam vs The District Collector And Others

Madras High Court|14 February, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.02.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.9718 of 2011 Thilagam ...Petitioner Versus
1. The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Block Development Officer, Panrutty Block Development Office, Panrutty, Cuddalore District.
3. Anandhi .. Respondents Prayers: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 28.02.2011 to the 1st and 2nd respondents.
For Petitioner : M/s.K.Thilageswaran For RR1 : M/s.S.Navaneethan, AGP For RR2 : Mr.M.Dhandapani For RR3 : Mr.K.Gandhikumar
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider his representation dated 28.02.2011.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made a representation on 28.02.2011, challenging the 3rd respondent appointment for the post of Nutrition Meal Organiser. The said representation is pending with the 1st respondent and no order has been passed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has submitted that the prayer in the Writ Petition is only to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2011 and not to challenge the appointment order of the 3rd respondent.
4. In view of the submission made by both parties, this court is inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2011 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing opportunities to both parties concerned. No costs.
14.02.2017 Index: Yes/ No Internet:Yes/No pvs To
1. The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.
2. The Block Development Officer, Panrutty Block Development Office, Panrutty, Cuddalore District.
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
pvs W.P.No.9718 of 2011 14.02.2017
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

Thilagam vs The District Collector And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
14 February, 2017
Judges
  • D Krishnakumar