1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/12/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA A N D THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.A.(MD) No.1574 of 2011 P. Manickam ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The Chairman Tuticorin Port Trust Tuticorin. ... Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act against the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.8772 of 2011 dated 5/8/2011. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.8772 of 2011: Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.3.2011 in accordance with law within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. For appellant ... Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan For respondent ... Mr.Arivu Chandran J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.N.BASHA, J) The appellant has come forward with this appeal, challenging the order of the writ Court dated 5/8/2011 made in W.P.(MD) No.8772 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19/3/2011. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is confining his submission only in imposing costs (by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition) of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the above said order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that he is leaving it to the decision of this Court in respect of the cost's portion imposed by the writ Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by either side and perused the order passed by the writ Court. 5. At the outset, it is to be stated that the writ Court went into the merits of the representation of the petitioner dated 19/3/2011 held that the said representation cannot be considered by the respondent herein by assigning certain reasons. However, the only grievance of the appellant is to the effect that imposition of costs. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that deleting the said portion of the order passed by the writ Court by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the particular portion of the order passed by the writ Court, on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In other respects, the order of the writ Court is hereby confirmed. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Chairman Tuticorin Port Trust Tuticorin. +1 CC to Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan, Advocate (SR.No.45365) W.A.(MD) No.1574 of 2011 22/12/2011 mvs NSV/9.1.12/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/