Madras High CourtWP(MD)/8509/2016disposed of

T.K.Raveendran, S/O.Thangam v. The District Collector

2016-04-28Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.04.2016 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Writ Petition (MD) No.8509 of 2016 and WMP(MD)No.6810 of 2016 T.K.Raveendran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2. The District Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office Sivagangai District.

3. The Block Development Officer, Singampunari Sivagangai District.

4. Tmt.Ponnammal ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to take action against the 4th respondent herein on the basis of the petitioner's representation which was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to him in his proceedings vide No.Na.Ka.A1/3316/2015 dated 17.02.2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore For Respondents : Mr.G.Muthu Kannan G.A for RR-1 to 3

ORDER

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent herein to take action against the 4th respondent herein on the basis of the petitioner's representation which was forwarded by the 3rd respondent to him in his proceedings vide No.Na.Ka.A1/3316/2015 dated 17.02.2016.

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent herein, while she was working in Chinnamanur Panchayat Union Office, Theni District, borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- in cash from the petitioner, on 06.10.2013 by executing a promissory note in favour of the petitioner. But she failed to repay the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

same. Hence, a suit was filed by the petitioner against the fourth respondent and in the said suit, an exparte decree was passed in favour of the fourth respondent. Even thereafter, the fourth respondent did not repay the amount. Hence, he filed an execution petition against the fourth respondent and the same is pending adjudication. In the mean while, the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent is going to retire on superannuation on 31.05.2016. Hence, the petitioner sent a detailed representation on 16.02.2016 to the 1st and 3rd respondents. Thereafter, the third respondent also forwarded the said representation sent by the petitioner to the second respondent, who is the Department Head of the fourth respondent. But, sofar, no action has been taken by the second respondent in this regard. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court with the present writ petition.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court, without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.02.2016 and pass appropriate orders, on the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(md).NO.6810 of 2016 is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

2. The District Social Welfare Officer, District Social Welfare Office Sivagangai District.

3. The Block Development Officer, Singampunari, Sivagangai District.

+ 1 CC TO MR.B.BRIJESH KISHORE, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 24852 VS TE/DP-NGM/ : 17/05/2016 : 2P/5C Writ Petition (MD) No.8509 of 2016 and WMP(MD)No.6810 of 2016 28.04.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/