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.

P.Baskarraj Vs. the State Rep. by the Commissioner

P.Baskarraj vs The State Rep. by the Commissioner

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 22, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927466

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
Writ Petition No.4480 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

P.Baskarraj

Advocate Mr.S.Ramajayam, Adv

Respondent

The State Rep. by the Commissioner

Advocate Mr.P.Srinivas, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Articles 226

Excerpt

prayer: petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to change the name in the birth certificate as baskarraj instead of venkatachalam by considering the petitioner representation dated 11.10.2011 filed by the petitioner and in accordance with law.order1. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.2. though the prayer sought for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.10.2011, is directed to be disposed of by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.3. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for such an order being passed by this court.4. in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 11.10.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. the petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 11.10.2011, to the respondent, along with a copy of this order. however, it is made clear that this court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. no costs.

Full Judgment

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to change the name in the birth certificate as Baskarraj instead of Venkatachalam by considering the petitioner representation dated 11.10.2011 filed by the petitioner and in accordance with law.

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Though the prayer sought for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.10.2011, is directed to be disposed of by the respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 11.10.2011, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 11.10.2011, to the respondent, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial