← Library
Madras High CourtWP/678/2016disposed of

R.Lakshmi v. The District Collector,

2016-11-07Honourable Mr Justice B. Rajendran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition No.678 of 2016 R.Lakshmi .. Petitioner - Vs -

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur Collectorate, Thiruvallur.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer-General, Ambattur Taluk office, Ambattur.

3. The Tahsildar, Maduravoyal Taluk Office, Maduravoyal, Chennai - 95.

.. Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the respondent in respect of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.2511/2014/A4, dated 18.03.2015 quash the same and to issue consequential directions to the respondents to issue the certificate of destitute widow based on the petitioner's application dated 14/07/2014 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Shenbaga Baabu For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Special Government Pleader - - - - -

O R D E R

The petitioner is a widow and she has applied for Destitute Widow Certificate for the purpose of pension and other benefits. In the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Inspector the petitioner has clearly stated that she was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/-. The Revenue Inspector has also recorded that the petitioner was earning a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- but while sending his report he has mentioned that the petitioner is earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore discrepancy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

has crept in.

2. The respondents have filed counter. In the counter they have stated that since in the report of the Revenue Inspector the monthly income of the petitioner is mentioned as Rs.5,000/- she will not be eligible for pension.

3. A perusal of the statement recorded by the Revenue Inspector would go to show that it has been clearly recorded by the Revenue Inspector that the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.4,000/- But while sending his report, he has mentioned the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/-

4. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 18.03.2015 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authority concerned and the authority concerned after affording one more opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar kk To

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur Collectorate, Thiruvallur.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer-General, Ambattur Taluk office, Ambattur.

3. The Tahsildar, Maduravoyal Taluk Office, Maduravoyal, Chennai - 95.

+2 ccs to Mr.S.R.Shanbaga Babu Advocate sr 63806 +1 cc to the Government Pleader High Court sr 63938 W.P.No.678 of 2016 br(co) aa15/12/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/