1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:21.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13208 of 2011 S.Bala Subramanian .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2011 within a stipulated time. For Petitioner : M/s.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader O R D E R This writ petition has been filed seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 14.06.2011 within a stipulated time. 2. Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr.B.Pugalenthi, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent of both parties, the present writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working as Village Assistant in Gangaikondan-I village, for having implicated in a false criminal case for the alleged offences under Section 302 r/w. 114 of IPC, was placed under suspension from service on 11.10.2010 by the order of the second respondent Tahsildhar, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli. Therefore, the only grievance of the petitioner is that he has reached the age of 56 years and is left with hardly two years to reach the age of superannuation from service. Therefore, if the petitioner is continuously kept under suspension till the completion of the criminal case, it would cause irreparable and grave injustice to him and also to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 his family members. On that basis, he made a representation on 14.06.2011 before the respondents for revocation of the suspension order. But the said representation has not been considered by the respondents till date. In view of the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's representation, after waiting for a quite long time, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking the above relief. 5. This Court, after seeing the charge sheet dated 01.01.2011 that shows that the petitioner has been named as accused No.3 with some overt act against the victim, declined to consider the said prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. srm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[RTI] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.40815. W.P(MD)No.13208 of 2011 Dated:21.11.2011 2P/4C RPB : 13.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/