Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1677 (MAD)

A. Kathija Beevi v. District Collector Villuppuram District

2012-04-02

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. 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 fourth respondent, with regard to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition and if the fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the same, on merits, within a specified time. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. 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 fourth respondent, with regard to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today. On such representation being submitted, the fourth respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the other persons concerned. 5. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.