N.Manivel v. The Commissioner, Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5.2.The Assistant Director
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Except giving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy against the order dated 29.07.2011 stated to have been passed by the 2ndrespondent, no further orders need to be passed in the Writ Appeal. TheWrit Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 18.08.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIandTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHW.A.(MD)No.788 of 2011andM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011N.Manivel...AppellantVs.
The Commissioner, Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5.
The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thanjavur.
R.Agilandam...RespondentsPrayer: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.7916 of 2011 dated18.07.2011. W.P.(MD)No.7916 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.A8/3683 dated 30.06.2011 and to quash the same as illegal and direct the first and second respondents to restore the petitioner at Taluk Office at Thanjavur at least till the expiry of minimum tenure of three years in the Maintenance Post. For Appellant: Mr.H.ThayumanaswamyFor Respondents: Mr.R.Karthikeyan, G.A.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)The appeal is directed against the order of the learned SingleJudge in W.P.(MD)No.7916 of 2011 dated 18.07.2011, by which, the learnedSingle Judge in the Writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent herein has directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the 3rdrespondent herein dated 04.07.2011, which relates to transfer. 2. The grievance of the appellant is that even though he was arrayed as third respondent in the Writ petition, the learned SingleJudge has not only directed notice to be given to the 3rd respondent, but, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2also directed the authorities to consider the representation of the Writpetitioner after giving notice to the present appellant and that has resulted in the passing of another order by the 2nd respondent dated29.07.2011 in favour of the original Writ petitioner. 3. On the face of it, the learned Single Judge has not given any positive direction. The learned Single Judge has only directed the authorities to consider the representation, which requires no interference by this Court.
Except giving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy against the order dated 29.07.2011 stated to have been passed by the 2ndrespondent, no further orders need to be passed in the Writ Appeal. TheWrit Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.nbjSd/-Assistant Registrar[Crl side]/True copy/Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Commissioner, Land Survey and Settlement, Survey House, Chepauk, Chennai-5.2.The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thanjavur. +1 cc to Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy, Advocate SR.No.28318.W.A.(MD)No.788 of 2011 Dated:18.08.20112P/4CRPB 07.09.2011
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.