AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 282 wordsM. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. D. Shanmugarajasethupathi, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Janakiramulu, the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. D. Sasikumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth
Respondent and Mr. R. Singaravelan, the learned Counsel appearing for the sixth Respondent and Mr. M. Siddarthan, the learned Counsel
appearing for the seventh Respondent.
Though the prayer sought for by the Petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for a larger relief, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the second Respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner, dated
19.03.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period.
The learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on either side, the second Respondent is directed to dispose of the
representation, dated 19.03.2010, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the Respondents 4,6,7, as well as to the other persons
concerned, if any, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
Petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 19.03.2010, to the second Respondent, along with a copy of this order.
However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
