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.

S.Mohan. Vs. the District Collector

S.Mohan vs The District Collector

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 14, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927648

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.25298 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1 And 2 of 2011
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

S.Mohan

Advocate Mr.V.Vijay Shankar, Adv.

Respondent

The District Collector

Advocate Mr.S.P.Prabakaran, 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 certiorarified mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the respondent in roc.no.7004/2007/tp2, dated 21.9.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner take into service.order1. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned special government pleader appearing for the respondent.2. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 4.4.2012, 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 4.4.2012, 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 4.4.2012, 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 Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the proceedings of the respondent in Roc.No.7004/2007/TP2, dated 21.9.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner take into service.

ORDER

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 4.4.2012, 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 4.4.2012, 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 4.4.2012, 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