Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 s. 205(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 20.08.2010 on merits and as per law, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 25.02.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARANW.P.(MD)No.1368 of 2011S.Sadaiya Gopal, President, Keezha Vallanadu Village Panchayat, Ellanaickenpatti Post, Srivaikundam Taluk, Tuticorin District. : Petitioner Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.: RespondentPRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to dispose of the appeal petition dated 20.08.2010 by considering the petitioner'srepresentation dated 06.01.2011 pending before him. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent : Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThe petitioner seeks disposal of the appeal dated 20.08.2010 along with his representation containing additional grounds submitted on06.01.2011.
The petitioner was elected as President of Keezha Vallanadu VillagePanchayat, Ellanaickenpatti Post, Srivaikundam Taluk in the District of Tuticorin. The District Collector, Tuticorin initiated action under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. Subsequently, as per proceedings dated 10.08.2010, the petitioner was removed from office. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal. Since all the particulars were not provided in the appeal, the petitioner appears to have made a representation on 06.01.2011. Since the appeal as well as the representation were not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Collector is a statutory appeal. The appeal was preferred as early as on 20.08.2010. Since some of the important points were not mentioned in the appeal memorandum, the petitioner appears to have made arepresentation subsequently. In any case, the appeal is now pending before the respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires consideration by the respondent.
Operative part
Accordingly, the respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on 20.08.2010 on merits and as per law, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is given liberty to raise additional grounds in support of his appeal. Theadditional grounds shall be filed before the respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. Nocosts. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS )/TRUE COPY/ASST REGISTRAR rj2ToThe Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.1CC TO MR. G. THALAIMUTHARASU, ADVOCATE,S R: 10386:1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR: 10393:DM:2011::MARCH:04::: W.P.(MD)No.1368 of 20112P:4C::
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 — s. 205(1).
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.