T.Pazhanivel. Vs. the Director of Rural Development

T.Pazhanivel. vs The Director of Rural Development

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 11, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927205

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/927205
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: R.Sudhakar, J.
Decided On: Apr 11, 2012
Case Number: Writ Petition No.9538 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

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

Constitution

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Articles 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T.Pazhanivel.

Advocate Mr.S.D.Santhanakrishnan. Adv.

Respondent

The Director of Rural Development

Advocate Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this court.order1. writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this court.2. mr.v.jayaprakash narayanan, learned additional government pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. by consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. in view of the nature of order to be passed, the notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with.3. petitioner has grievance against the fifth respondent in the working of the panchayat. in this regard, petitioner claims that he has sent a legal notice dated 21.2.2012 through an advocate to the district collector, the second respondent and the assistant director of rural development agency, the fourth respondent and the proof of delivery is enclosed by the letter dated 3.3.2012 of chief post master, anna road head office.4. this court at this stage is not inclined to go into the merits of the complaint/legal notice except to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to look into the complaint/legal notice dated 21.2.2012 on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion against the fifth respondent against whom the complaint is made. the authority shall proceed in the matter by following the due process of law and also avoid the allegation of principles of natural justice.5. the writ petition is disposed of as above. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this Court.

ORDER

1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this Court.

2. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. In view of the nature of order to be passed, the notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with.

3. Petitioner has grievance against the fifth respondent in the working of the panchayat. In this regard, petitioner claims that he has sent a legal notice dated 21.2.2012 through an advocate to the District Collector, the second respondent and the Assistant Director of Rural Development Agency, the fourth respondent and the proof of delivery is enclosed by the letter dated 3.3.2012 of Chief Post Master, Anna Road Head Office.

4. This Court at this stage is not inclined to go into the merits of the complaint/legal notice except to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to look into the complaint/legal notice dated 21.2.2012 on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion against the fifth respondent against whom the complaint is made. The authority shall proceed in the matter by following the due process of law and also avoid the allegation of principles of natural justice.

5. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties T.Pazhanivel. vs The Director of Rural Development Same Subject Constitution Same Judge R.Sudhakar, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Articles 226