1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1460 of 2011 N.Senthil Kumar ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. ... Respondent/Respondent Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 16.11.2011, made in W.P.(MD) No.13001 of 2011. WP.(MD).No.13001/2011 : Praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.10.2011. For Appellant : Mr.A.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Chandrasakaran Government Advocate. JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellant has preferred this writ appeal challenging the order of the writ court, dated 16.11.2011, passed in W.P.(MD) No.13001 of 2011, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of directing the respondent to consider his representation, dated 30.10.2011. 2.Mr.R.Anandharaj, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent. By mutual consent of the counsel on either side, the writ appeal is taken for final disposal at the time of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant preferred the writ petition itself only for the limited relief of seeking for a direction to the respondent to consider his representation, dated 30.10.2011 but, the writ court has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the affidavit filed by the appellant does not disclose even minimum facts which led to the passing of the suspension order. Therefore, it is contended that the writ court's order is liable to be set aside. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that the appellant has not stated the details of facts led to the passing of the impugned suspension order and as such, the writ court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions put-forward on either side and also perused the materials available on record. 6.The fact remains that the appellant had preferred the writ petition seeking only a limited prayer of a direction to the respondent to consider his representation, dated 30.10.2011. When such a limited prayer has been made, the appellant is expected to give the facts required for consideration of such a prayer and he need not go into the root of the matter for passing the suspension order. 7.In view of the same, we are constrained to set aside the order of the writ court. Consequently, without going into the merits of the representation of the appellant, dated 30.10.2011, and without expressing any view on such representation, we are constrained to direct the respondent herein to consider the representation of the appellant, dated 30.10.2011, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant shall furnish a copy of his representation, dated 30.10.2011, afresh to the respondent, along with a copy of this order, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.The writ appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To: The District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. +1cc to Special Government pleader, SR.No.44073 +1cc to M/s.R.Boomi Rajan, Advocate, sR.No.43686 gb GH : 23.12.2011 : 2p/4c Judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1460/2011 Dated:14.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/