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 · 255 wordsM. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. A.R. Palani Rajan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K.M. Vijaya Kumar,
the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.
At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if
the Respondent is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 10.11.2010, and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in
accordance with law, within a specified period.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondent, 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 Respondent is directed to consider the representation of
the Petitioner, dated 10.11.2010, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as to the other persons concerned, and pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
Petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 10.11.2010, to the 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.