Dismissed

M.Murali, S/O K.Muthu, v. the Secretary

Madras HC11 Jun 2015WP(MD)/18578/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ to quash an order transferring the petitioner as Additional Treasury Officer and exempt him from transfer for the 2014-2015 academic year. The court found the relief sought no longer existed, dismissing the petition as infructuous and closing connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous as the relief sought no longer exists; connected M.P.s closed.

M.Murali, S/O K.Muthu, Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.18578 of 2014

¶6

and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶7

M.Murali

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary, Finance Department, St.George, Fort, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Director of Treasury and Accounts Office of Director of Treasury and Accounts, Chennai – 15.

¶11

3.The District Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

4.The District Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office, Namakkal District.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order in Rc.No.31511/13/N2-4 dated 13.11.2014 passed by the 2^nd respondent and the same is illegal and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent not to transfer the petitioner to any district in the academic year 2014 – 2015 for the post of Additional Treasury Officer.

¶15

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandaraj, Govt.Advocate

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order in Rc.No.31511/13/N2-4, dated 13.11.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent not to transfer the petitioner to any district in the academic year 2014 – 2015 for the post of Additional Treasury Officer.

¶19

2.Now the relief sought for by the petitioner no longer exists and hence, the Writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(Per.Admn.)

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

¶27

1.The Secretary, Finance Department, St.George, Fort, Chennai.

¶28

2.The Director of Treasury and Accounts Office of Director of Treasury and Accounts, Chennai – 15.

¶29

3.The District Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office, Ramanathapuram.

¶30

4.The District Treasury Officer, Office of the District Treasury Office, Namakkal District.

¶31

+1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.30487 W.P.(MD)No.18578 of 2014 11.06.2015

¶32

+1cc to Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.30487 nbj

¶33

PA/SJW/03.07.2015/2P/6C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M.Murali, S/O K.Muthu, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murali, S/O K.Muthu, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Sathaiah, Vs the Agicultural Production

R. Suronmani, Vs the Project Director

N.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Director General

K.Muthu Vs University Grants Commission

K. Velusamy, Vs the Registrar

Pappathiyammal Pitchai Edl. Vs the Central Board of