Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Revenue Divisional Officer v. M.Revathi - W.A. No.3820 of 2004 [2007] RD-TN 1372 (10 April 2007)


Dated : 10.04.2007


The Honourable Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM


The Honourable Mr. Justice S. TAMILVANAN

W.A. No.3820 of 2004


W.A.M.P. No.7221 of 2004

The Revenue Divisional Officer,


Villupuram District. ... Appellant Vs

M. Revathi ... Respondent Appeal to set aside the order dated 3.9.2004 passed in W.P. No.25295 of 2004 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr. K. Elango, Spl. Govt. Pleader For Respondents : Mr. E. Vijay Anand JUDGMENT

(Judgment was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 3.9.2004 made in W.P. No.25295 of 2004, in and by which, the learned Judge directed the respondent therein viz. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kallakurichi to consider the representation dated 8.3.2004 given by the petitioner's father and issue community Certificate forthwith.

2. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. At the outset, learned Special Government Pleader brought to our notice that even as early as 16.7.2004, the Revenue Divisional Officer, after considering the claim of the writ petitioner, came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner belongs to denotifed community and if she is aggrieved, she is free to file an appeal before the District Collector within a period of thirty days. The said order was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge when he passed an order in the writ petition on 3.9.2004.

4. In view of the fact that the request of the petitioner was considered and an order has been passed, no doubt against her request, we are of the view that the direction of the learned Judge to consider the representation dated 8.3.2004 and also issue community Certificate forthwith does not arise. On this ground, the order of the learned Judge dated 3.9.2004 passed in W.P. No.25295 of 2004 is set aside. It is made clear that the respondent herein-writ petitioner is free to move the appropriate Authority to vindicate her grievance, if any.

5. With the above observation, the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.P. is closed. No costs. ssa.



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


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 |

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