Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3625 (MAD)

Seagul Infras, Represented by its Proprietor, C. Manivannan v. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Oppanakara Street Assessment Circle

2012-08-17

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 on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 28.2.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, 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, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 28.02.2012, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation, dated 28.02.2012, to the first respondent, along with a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.