P. Tharmar Vs. The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chennai and Others

P. Tharmar vs The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chennai and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 26, 2015

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1179155

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1179155
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: D. Hariparanthaman
Decided On: Nov 26, 2015
Case Number: W.P (MD) No. 21066 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

P. Tharmar

Respondent

The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General) Public Works Department, Chennai and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent i.e. the chief engineer (buildings), madurai to send his proposals to the engineer-in-chief , water resources department and chief engineer (general), chennai based on the report of the superintending engineer, madurai sent in his letter no.e.a.1/461/2015 dated 05.08.2015 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this court and then on receipt of it, the engineer-in-chief, water resources department and chief engineer (general), chennai may be directed to take a decision on the proposals received on merits and in accordance with law within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this court.) 1. the petitioner is working as a head wireman in public works department. he made a representation to the first respondent to grant him promotion to the post of foreman. 2. based on his representation, the first respondent sent letter no.s4(4)/23229/2015 dated 18.02.2015 to the second respondent seeking to send appropriate proposal in this regard. based on the same, the second respondent sent a letter dated 12.03.2015 to the third respondent seeking certain details. pursuant to the letter dated 12.03.2015 of the second respondent, the third respondent sent a report in letter dated 05.08.2015. in such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the second respondent to send appropriate proposals to the first respondent pursuant to the letter dated 18.02.2015 of the first respondent in the light of the report dated 05.08.2015 of the third respondent within a stipulated period. 3. in view of the limited prayer made, a direction is issued to the second respondent to send an appropriate report to the first respondent in pursuant to the letter dated 18.02.2015, based on the letter dated 05.08.2015 of the third respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent i.e. the Chief Engineer (Buildings), Madurai to send his proposals to the Engineer-in-Chief , Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General), Chennai based on the report of the Superintending Engineer, Madurai sent in his letter No.E.A.1/461/2015 dated 05.08.2015 within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court and then on receipt of it, the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General), Chennai may be directed to take a decision on the proposals received on merits and in accordance with law within a specified time frame that may be fixed by this Court.)

1. The petitioner is working as a Head Wireman in Public Works Department. He made a representation to the first respondent to grant him promotion to the post of Foreman.

2. Based on his representation, the first respondent sent letter No.S4(4)/23229/2015 dated 18.02.2015 to the second respondent seeking to send appropriate proposal in this regard. Based on the same, the second respondent sent a letter dated 12.03.2015 to the third respondent seeking certain details. Pursuant to the letter dated 12.03.2015 of the second respondent, the third respondent sent a report in letter dated 05.08.2015. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the second respondent to send appropriate proposals to the first respondent pursuant to the letter dated 18.02.2015 of the first respondent in the light of the report dated 05.08.2015 of the third respondent within a stipulated period.

3. In view of the limited prayer made, a direction is issued to the second respondent to send an appropriate report to the first respondent in pursuant to the letter dated 18.02.2015, based on the letter dated 05.08.2015 of the third respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2015 Same Parties P. Tharmar vs The Engineer-in-Chief Water Resources Departmen... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge D. Hariparanthaman