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.

M. Otchathevar Vs. The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and Others

M. Otchathevar vs The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Oct 29, 2015
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1178912

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. 19543 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

M. Otchathevar

Respondent

The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india for the issuance of a writ ofmandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 01.04.2015 to set aside the punishment order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2015.) 1. the petitioner, who suffered the punishment of compulsory retirement, by order dated 06.03.2015, at the hands of the superintendent of police, madurai district, the 3rd respondent herein, has filed an appeal before the deputy inspector general of police, south zone, madurai, the second respondent herein, on 01.04.2015. finding no response in the status of the appeal, the petitioner has come before this court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal preferred by him dated 01.04.2015 to set aside the punishment order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2015. 2. mrs.s.bharathi, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that if sufficient time is granted, the pending appeal will be considered on merits. 3. recording the submissions of the learned government advocate, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 01.04.2015 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. no costs.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 01.04.2015 to set aside the punishment order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2015.)

1. The petitioner, who suffered the punishment of compulsory retirement, by order dated 06.03.2015, at the hands of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, the 3rd respondent herein, has filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, the second respondent herein, on 01.04.2015. Finding no response in the status of the appeal, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeal preferred by him dated 01.04.2015 to set aside the punishment order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2015.

2. Mrs.S.Bharathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that if sufficient time is granted, the pending appeal will be considered on merits.

3. Recording the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 01.04.2015 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial