Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

D. Karikalan Vs. The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution and Generation Company, TANGEDCO, Chennai and Another

D. Karikalan vs The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution and Generation Company, TANGEDCO, Chennai and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Dec 01, 2015
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1178671

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P(MD)No. 21332 of 2015
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D. Karikalan

Respondent

The Chief Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Distribution and Generation Company, TANGEDCO, Chennai and Another

Excerpt

(prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with the board proceedings in b.p.ms.(f.b) no.3 dated 09.01.2007 with all monetary and attendant benefits.) 1. the father of the petitioner was an employee in the respondent tamil nadu electricity board. he applied for compassionate appointment. the second respondent issued a proceeding in ( tamil ?) dated 20.03.2007 to furnish the documents referred to therein. 2. the grievance of the petitioner is that though he furnished those documents, no further reply is given by the second respondent. hence, he made representation dated 31.03.2015. now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 31.03.2015 referred to above. but, no acknowledgement is enclosed for having sent the representation to the first respondent. 3. in these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent to pass order on his representation in the light of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.03.2007 referred to above. on receipt of such representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order on merits and in accordance with law. 4. this writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with the Board proceedings in B.P.Ms.(F.B) No.3 dated 09.01.2007 with all monetary and attendant benefits.)

1. The father of the petitioner was an employee in the respondent Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He applied for compassionate appointment. The second respondent issued a proceeding in ( Tamil ?) dated 20.03.2007 to furnish the documents referred to therein.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he furnished those documents, no further reply is given by the second respondent. Hence, he made representation dated 31.03.2015. Now, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 31.03.2015 referred to above. But, no acknowledgement is enclosed for having sent the representation to the first respondent.

3. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the first respondent to pass order on his representation in the light of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 20.03.2007 referred to above. On receipt of such representation, the first respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order on merits and in accordance with law.

4. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial