Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

P. Rajammal vs The Tahsildar on 21 January, 2016

Author: R. Mahadevan

Bench: R.Mahadevan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:  21.01.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE  R.MAHADEVAN

 W.P.No.1948  of 2016


P. Rajammal	                          				  [ Petitioner  ]
          Vs

The Tahsildar,
Mahdavaram Region,
M.G.R. Road, Madhavaram,
Chennai 600 060.							[Respondent]

	Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2015 .
	For Petitioner		..	Mr.S. Ilamvaludhi	
	For Respondent		..	Mr. A. Kumar,
						Addl. Govt. Pleader.


 ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction directing the respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

3.The petitioner, who is a widow, applied for old age pension and subsequently, the Special Tahsildar, Purasaiwalkam-Perambur Region, through his proceedings issued in Na.Ka.E.17327/2010 dated 10.2.2011 wrote a letter to the Special Tahsildar, Madhavaram recommending to sanction the old age pension and a BPL card and sanction order No.TN-S-00446502 and in pursuance of which, the Tahsildar of Madhavaram also sanctioned pension for the petitioner from July 2013.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that from December 2014, onwards, the old age pension has not been disbursed to the petitioner. When the petitioner enquired about the same, she was informed by the respondent that it will be disbursed soon. She also gave a representation to the respondent on 5.1.2015 to disburse the pension amount to her. But there is no response from the respondent. Hence the petitioner once again, gave a representation on 20.8.2015 before the respondent seeking old age pension. But so far, the petitioner's representation has not been disposed of by the respondent and the same is kept pending till date. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Seeking old age pension, the petitioner approached the authorities and in pursuant of which, the Tahsildar of Madhavaram passed an order on 11.6.2013 sanctioning her old age pension. But even then, the pension amount has not been disbursed to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner moved the authorities once again by a representation dated 20.08.2015.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2015 is disposed of by the respondent.

7. Learned Additional Government Pleader has no serious objections for issuing such order.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 20.08.2015 and pass necessary orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this R. MAHADEVAN, J.

msr order.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of . No costs.

21.01.2016 Index:Yes/No msr To The Tahsildar, Mahdavaram Region, M.G.R. Road, Madhavaram, Chennai 600 060.

W.P.No.1948 of 2016