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
13 paragraphs · 250 wordsM. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. S. Siva Thilakar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Manoharan, the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents.
By consent of 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 second Respondent is directed to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 12.03.2010, on merits and in accordance with law,
within a specified period.
The learned Government Advocate 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 12.03.2010, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as to the other persons concerned, 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 12.03.2010, 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. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.