Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1396 (MAD)

S. Johnson v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director & Others

2009-04-24

M.JAICHANDREN

body2009
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. In spite of notice having been served on the first and second respondents, and they have been shown in the cause list, there is no appearance on their behalf, either in person or through their counsel. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of fifteen days from today, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.