SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 427

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

M. Syed Ali - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Pudukkottai & Another - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 657 of 2015
Decided on: 21-01-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:K. Sivasenthil Murugan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: D. Muruganandam, Addl. Govt.Pleader.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme - The court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation for the loan under the PMEGP, disposing of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for a loan under the PMEGP.

Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to make a fresh representation for the loan under the PMEGP.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for a loan under the PMEGP.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to make a fresh representation for the loan, as the earlier representation contained allegations that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation for the loan under the PMEGP.

Judgment

1. Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2014 under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP).

4. A perusal of the said representation would show that the petitioner has made certain allegations against one official by name C.Devaraj, in not disbursing the loan amount to the petitioner. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not interest in taking any action against the said official and the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider his claim for the loan and pass orders on the same.

5. As I have already pointed out that the earlier representation proceeded to make certain allegations against one official and sought for action which the petitioner is not interested to pursue now, he is to make a fresh representation seeking for disbursing of the loan under the above said scheme. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the authorities concerned and if any such representation is made, it is for the authorities to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a fresh representation. No costs.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top