Skip to main content

Internal communications cannot be challenged: HC

An alleged encroacher of public property cannot challenge an internal communication between two government officials on the issue just because a copy of it had been marked to him too, the Madras High Court Bench here has held. Justices S. Manikumar and C.T. Selvam passed the order while dismissing a writ petition filed by a private school at Guntur village in Tiruverumbur Taluk of Tiruchi district challenging a letter written by a Tahsildar directing a Block Development Officer to act against encroachments.

Stating that the school could approach the court only when the revenue officials initiate action against it under the relevant enactments, the judges said that a communication sent by one official to another could not be challenged by way of a writ petition.


BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT              

DATED:  24.03.2016

CORAM  
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR          
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM      

W.P.(MD)No.5940 of 2016
in
WMP(MD)No.5271 of 2016  

Sri Ramakrishna Matriculation School,
Rep. By its Correspondent,
P.S.Murali Krishnan                             ...  Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector,
   Trichy.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
   Trichy.

3.The Tahsildar,
   Taluk Office,
   Tiruverumbur,
   Tiruchirapalli District.

4.The Block Development Officer,
   Panchayat Union Office,
   Thiruverumbur.

5.S.Baskar                                      ...   Respondents

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen
21 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le
1 comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a
10 comments
Read more