Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 469 (MAD)

V. Priyanka v. The Special Commissioner for Handicapped, Office of the State Commissioner for Disabled & Another

2010-02-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels 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 8.1.2010, is directed to be disposed of by the second respondent, on merits and in accordance with law, within a specified period. 4. The learned counsels 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 second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 8.1.2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 8.1.2010, to the second respondent, 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 allowed, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.