Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C. JEYARAMAN versus THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C. Jeyaraman v. The Principal Chief Conservator - W.P.No.33286 of 2002 [2002] RD-TN 596 (19 August 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 19/08/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN

W.P.No.33286 of 2002

C. Jeyaraman .... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The Principal Chief Conservator

of Forest, Panagal Buildings,

Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Assistant Conservator of Forest,

Forest Protection Squared,

Fort, Vellore 5. .... Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Rajaram

For Respondents : Mr. Seetharaman, Spl.G.P.

(Forest)

:O R D E R



Writ petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 07.10.1996.

2. According to the petitioner, he had purchased timber for constructing his house and he had transported it through a check post legally. However, the Forest Protection Squad had arrested him and his aged father on the ground, it was timber that was enter possession illegally. All that the petitioner requests is consideration and disposal of his representation.

3. The Special Government Pleader takes notice.

4. The affidavit discloses that not only the petitioner but also his aged father were threatened with arrest if they refused to pay the fine and a fine of Rs.10,000/- also appears to have been paid.

5. Six years have passed and the first respondent authorities appear to be in a state of slumber. It is very unfortunate that responsible officers should take their own time to consider the representations of the citizens. This is their duty and the citizens have a right to expect some orders within a reasonable time; and not have to approach this Court for a mandamus. Perhaps if the slow moving officers are made to pay costs, they will shift gear and move fast. Day after day, this Court is flooded with petitions merely to direct the officers to pass orders. This is a colossal waste of time, energy, money, not to mention valuable paper, and all because one officer somewhere is failing to act in time. The officers must remember that there is a limit to the patience of anyone, even the poor ordinary common man.

6. The above writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 07.10.1996 within a period of four weeks in accordance with law. No costs. 19.08.2002

Index:Yes

Internet: Yes

PRABHA SRIDEVAN,J

sl

To

1. The Principal Chief Conservator

of Forest, Panagal Buildings,

Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Assistant Conservator of Forest,

Forest Protection Squared,

Fort, Vellore 5.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.