S.Sankaravelu vs The District Collector on 3 September, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Sankaravelu vs The District Collector on 3 September, 2014

Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.09.2014

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

W.P.(MD)No.14538 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

S.Sankaravelu					... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,
  Virudhunagar District,
  Virudhunagar.
2.The Tahsildar,
  Sattur Taluk,
  Virudhunagar District.
3.The Revenue Inspector,
  Elayirampannai,
  Virudhunagar District.
4.The Village Administrative Officer,
  Gangarakottai,
  Sattur Taluk,
  Virudhunagar District.			 ... Respondents

Prayer

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records
pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
O.Mu.B5/5562/2014, dated 16.06.2014, quash the same and consequently to
direct the 2nd respondent to give the arrears of old age pension to the
petitioner for the period from December, 2013 to August, 2014.

!For Petitioner	...	Mr.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi
^For Respondents...	Mr.M.Raja Raman
			Government Advocate

:ORDER

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned proceedings, by which the old age pension granted was abruptly stopped stating that on enquiry it came to know that the petitioner is reasonably financially sound and he is capable of doing work.

2. It is brought to the notice of this that that the petitioner underwent heart surgery and Pace Maker has been fixed in his heart. Further, the impugned order does not show on what basis the authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is reasonably financially sound. The petitioner has not been issued with notice prior to the impugned order and the copy of the alleged enquiry has also not been furnished. On these grounds, the impugned order is bad in law.

3. According the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the second respondent respondent is directed to restore the old age pension and continue to pay the same. However, it is open to the second respondent to initiate fresh action in accordance with law, if they so desire. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Index	:Yes/No						03.09.2014
Internet	:Yes
sj
To:

1.The District Collector,
  Virudhunagar District,
  Virudhunagar.

2.The Tahsildar,
  Sattur Taluk,
  Virudhunagar District.

3.The Revenue Inspector,
  Elayirampannai,
  Virudhunagar District.

4.The Village Administrative Officer, Gangarakottai, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

sj W.P.(MD)No.14538 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 03.09.2014

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court