Skip to content


Mohan Dass Vs. The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigham Ltd. Madurai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)No. 1427 of 2012 & M.P(MD)No. 1 of 2012
Judge
AppellantMohan Dass
RespondentThe General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigham Ltd. Madurai and Others
Excerpt:
.....agraharam street, north avani moola veethi, madurai. originally the said shop was allotted to dhana pandian by the first respondent. the said dhana pandian adopted the petitioner as his son. thereafter, the said dhana pandian passed away. after his death, the petitioner is continuing the telephone booth business in the above place. while so, the 3rd and 4th respondents with a help of the second respondent subordinate officers came to his shop on 20.12.2011 and directed the petitioner to remove the shop from the above said place. therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents 2 and 5. since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the relief as stated supra. 3. when the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf.....
Judgment:

Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentsto restore the petitioner in Shop No.65, Thalavai Agraharam Street, North Avani Moola Veethi, Madurai pending disposal of the above writ petition.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to restore the petitioner in Shop No.65, Thalavai Agraharam Street, North Avani Moola Veethi, Madurai pending disposal of the above writ petition.

2. It is seen that the petitioner running a Public Telephone Booth at No.65, Thalavai Agraharam Street, North Avani Moola Veethi, Madurai. Originally the said shop was allotted to Dhana Pandian by the first respondent. The said Dhana Pandian adopted the petitioner as his son. Thereafter, the said Dhana Pandian passed away. After his death, the petitioner is continuing the Telephone Booth business in the above place. While so, the 3rd and 4th respondents with a help of the second respondent subordinate officers came to his shop on 20.12.2011 and directed the petitioner to remove the shop from the above said place. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents 2 and 5. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the relief as stated supra.

3. When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the fifth respondent and Mr.R.Murali, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in this Writ Petition, the respondents 2 and 5 are directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.01.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the interested parties, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //