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.

Ravivarman, Vs The state rep by

Ravivarman, vs The state rep by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 20, 2026
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1438671

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP/14327/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravivarman,

Respondent

The state rep by

Excerpt

.....petitioner(s): mr.r.thirumoorthy for respondent: mr. l.s.m. hasan fizal additional government pleaderorderheard both sides.2. the petitioner is presently working as an assistant executive engineerin chennai corporation. the grievance of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 16.08.1969 and not 13.07.1966. the petitioner claims that his father has moved jurisdictional court and obtained order on 23.06.1985 in o.p. no.4122 of 1986 on the file of the learned judicial magistrate, mayiladudurai.3. the petitioner wants the corresponding changes to be made in his‘service register’. in this regard, he has given an application and it was also forwarded by the third respondent to the first respondent. the petitioner is due to retire shortly. the first respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application on merits and in accordance with law. such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. it is made clear that i did not go into the merits of the matter.4. accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. no costs. index:yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderinternet:yes neutral citation:yes/no ab to1. the principal secretary to government, municipal administration and water supply department, secretariat, fort st. george, chennai - 600009. g.r.swaminathan j. ab

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-05-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G. R. SWAMINATHAN Ravivarman Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The State Rep. by

The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009. Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in the light of the communication forwarded by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Po.Thu.Na.Ka.En.Ee1/22594/2025 dated 20.12.2025 with respect to petitioner’s actual date of birth i.e 16.08.1969 in the service register pursuant to petitioners representations dated 04.03.2026 and 01.04.2026 within a time frame as stipulated by this Court

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Thirumoorthy For Respondent: Mr. L.S.M. Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Executive Engineer

in Chennai Corporation. The grievance of the petitioner is that his actual date of birth is 16.08.1969 and not 13.07.1966. The petitioner claims that his father has moved jurisdictional Court and obtained order on 23.06.1985 in O.P. No.4122 of 1986 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladudurai.

3. The petitioner wants the corresponding changes to be made in his

‘Service Register’. In this regard, he has given an application and it was also forwarded by the third respondent to the first respondent. The petitioner is due to retire shortly. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application on merits and in accordance with law. Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that I did not go into the merits of the matter.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Index:Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ab To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600009. G.R.SWAMINATHAN J. ab

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial