The Madurai Paddy Commission Agents Association vs The Commissioner, Department of Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business and The Madurai Marketing Committee

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard Mr. G. Maruthiah, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Janakiramulu, the learned

Special Government pleader appearing for the first Respondent and Mr. R. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

second Respondent.

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 first Respondent is directed to consider the representation of the Petitioner, dated 30.09.2010, and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits

and in accordance with law, within a specified period.

The learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondents, have 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 first Respondent is directed to consider the

representation of the Petitioner, dated 30.09.2010, and pass appropriate orders thereon, 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 30.09.2010,

to the first 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.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.