Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2360 (MAD)

S. Vinu v. The Chief Educational Officer, Nagarkoil & Others

2009-07-14

M.JAICHANDREN

body2009
Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 2. At this stage of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 112. 2000, directed to be disposed of by the first respondent, on merits, within a specified period. 3. There is no representation for the third respondent. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 , has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, without going into the merits of case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 112. 2000, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been disposed of till date. The petitioner is directed to furnish to the first respondent a copy of the representation, dated 112. 2000, along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.