Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 216 (MAD)

P. Shanmugam v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Another

2010-01-20

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. 3. Though the prayer sought for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice, if the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.1.2010, is directed to be disposed of by the first respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 11.1.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The petitioner is directed to furnish to the first respondent a copy of the representation, dated 11.1.2010, 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.