R.Ramesh, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 06.06.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.9819 of 2018 R.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

2. The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Gingee, Villupuram District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 02.07.2015, 02.09.2015, 01.11.2016, 20.03.2018 followed by counsel's notice dated 27.03.2018 and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's children viz., Ms.Rashika (Minor Daughter) born on 17.03.2006; Ms.R.Vadivudainayakgi (minor Daughter) born on 26.09.2008 and R.Mohanraam (Minor Son) born on 26.11.2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udayakumar For Respondents: Mr.S.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 02.07.2015, 02.09.2015, 01.11.2016, 20.03.2018 followed by counsel's notice dated 27.03.2018 and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to issue community certificate to the petitioner's children viz., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Ms.Rashika (Minor Daughter) born on 17.03.2006;

Ms.R.Vadivudainayakgi (minor Daughter) born on 26.09.2008 and R.Mohanraam (Minor Son) born on 26.11.2013.

2. When the matter came up for admission on last occasion, learned Government Advocate sought time for getting instruction. Today, when the matter is called, learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner's representation was rejected by the Tahsildar and he has also produced the order of rejection dated 17.05.2018. We have perused the said rejection order and a copy of the same was also handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Since the representation of the petitioner was rejected, nothing survives in this writ petition to be adjudicated upon further. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection order in the manner known to law, if he so desires. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Collector, Villupuram, Villupuram District.

2. The Thasildar, Taluk Office, Gingee, Villupuram District.

+1cc to Mr.S.Udayakumar, Advocate sr.no.35459 +1cc to Government Pleader in sr.no.35815 W.P.No.9819 of 2018 nr 18/06/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/