A.Kalidoss vs The Executive Officer on 1 August, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Kalidoss vs The Executive Officer on 1 August, 2017

Bench: R.Mahadevan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 01.08.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN             

W.P(MD)No.13692 of 2017   

A.Kalidoss                                                              ... Petitioner
Vs.

1.The Executive Officer,
   Arulmigu Dandayuthapaani Swami Thirukovil,
   Palani - 624 601.

2.The Manager, 
   Arulmigu Dandayuthapaani Swami Thirukovil,
   Palani - 624 601.

3.The Superintendent,
   Tonsuring (Mudi) Section,
   Arulmigu Dandayuthapaani Swami Thirukovil,
   Palani - 624 601.                                            ... Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider
the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2017 and direct the
respondents to grant licence on tonsuring (mudi eduthal) in favour of the
petitioner within the stipulated time.

!For Petitioner :       Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus
                
For Respondents :       Mr.K.Govindarajan         





:ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.04.2017 and direct the respondents to grant licence on tonsuring (mudi eduthal) in favour of the petitioner within the stipulated time.

2. Mr.K.Govindarjan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents.

3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

4. The case of the petitioner is that his cousin, namely, K.Karthick, who got valid licence from the respondents to undertake the tonsuring works, volunteered to relinquish his licence in favour of the petitioner and in this regard, the petitioner and his cousin sent various representations to the respondents, for which, the first respondent sent a communication dated 29.03.2016 to the cousin of the petitioner for compliance of certain conditions. Accordingly, he submitted No Objection Certificate from his family members, however, there was no response from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 28.04.2017 to the respondents seeking transfer of licence granted to the cousin of the petitioner. Finding no action, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for transfer of licence for undertaking tonsuring works from his cousin, namely, K.Karthick, based on his representation, dated 28.04.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

To:

1.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Dandayuthapaani Swami Thirukovil, Palani - 624 601.

2.The Manager, Arulmigu Dandayuthapaani Swami Thirukovil, Palani - 624 601.

3.The Superintendent, Tonsuring (Mudi) Section, Arulmigu Dandayuthapaani Swami Thirukovil, Palani - 624 601.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court