Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR
T. Pazhanivel
Versus
The Director of Rural Development, Chepauk & Others
Writ Petition No.9538 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided on: 11-04-2012
Writ Petition - Mandamus - The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary action against the fifth respondent, emphasizing the need to follow due process of law and principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary action against the fifth respondent for acts of commission and omission.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents 2 and 4 to look into the complaint/legal notice dated 21.2.2012 on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, emphasizing the need to follow due process of law and principles of natural justice.
Issues: Grievance against the fifth respondent in the working of the panchayat, failure to consider the petitioner's representation, and the need to ensure due process of law and principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following due process of law and principles of natural justice in considering the petitioner's representation and taking necessary action against the fifth respondent.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction for respondents 2 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary action against the fifth respondent, with an emphasis on following due process of law and principles of natural justice. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2012 and to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, who had committed acts of commission and omission, within a time prescribed by this Court.
2. Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. By consent the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. In view of the nature of order to be passed, the notice to the fifth respondent is dispensed with.
3. Petitioner has grievance against the fifth respondent in the working of the panchayat. In this regard, petitioner claims that he has sent a legal notice dated 21.2.2012 through an advocate to the District Collector, the second respondent and the Assistant Director of Rural Development Agency, the fourth respondent and the proof of delivery is enclosed by the letter dated 3.3.2012 of Chief Post Master, Anna Road Head Office.
4. This Court at this stage is not inclined to go into the merits of the complaint/legal notice except to direct the respondents 2 and 4 to look into the complaint/legal notice dated 21.2.2012 on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion against the fifth respondent against whom the complaint is made. The authority shall proceed in the matter by following the due process of law and also avoid the allegation of principles of natural justice.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
