High CourtsSingle Bench

S.Vairavasundaram vs The Assistant Engineer and The Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 November 2010 · Citation: (2010) 11 MAD CK 0094

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (MD) No. 13351 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

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

12 paragraphs · 236 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. A. Haja Mohideen, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. M. Suresh

Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2.

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 representation of the Petitioner, dated 01.10.2010, is directed to be disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified

period.

3.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

4.

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, the first Respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the Petitioner''s representation, dated 01.10.2010,

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

submit a copy of the representation, dated 01.10.2010, along with a copy of this order, to the first Respondent. However, it is made clear, that this

Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

5.

The writ petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.