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 ...
22 comments
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...
11 comments
Read more

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...
Post a Comment
Read more