Dismissed

M.Murugan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Jul 2016WP(MD)/14436/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed seeking a writ of mandamus to extend a fishing lease by one year. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the petitions, observing they became infructuous as the lease period currently sought had already expired, and consequently closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M.Murugan, Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.07.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14436/2013 and WP.(MD).NO. 14437/2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1,1 & 2,2 of 2013

¶7

W.P(MD)No.14436 of 2013:

¶8

M.Murugan .. Petitioner

¶9

-Vs-.

¶10

1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni,

¶11

The President,

¶12

Fish Farmers Development Authority.

¶13

2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries)

¶14

Vaigai Dam,

¶15

Theni District.

¶16

3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, St.George Fort, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.99/Aa/2013-3 dated 26.08.2013 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also to pass an order directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.08.2013 and extend the lease period of fishing to 2013-2014 in favour of the petitioner and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

¶18

(Suo motu prayer amended as per order of this Court on 29.08.2013)

¶19

W.P(MD)No.14437 of 2013:

¶20

M.Murali .. Petitioner

¶21

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

¶22

-Vs-.

¶23

¶24

1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni, The President, Fish Farmers Development Authority. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries) Vaigai Dam,Theni District.

¶25

3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, St.George Fort, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶26

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.99/Aa/2013-3 dated 29.07.2013 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and against the principles of natural justice and also to pass an order directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.07.2013 and extend the lease period of fishing to 2013-2014 in favour of the petitioner and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.

¶27

(Suo motu prayer amended as per order of this Court on 29.08.2013)

¶28

For Petitioners in both WPs : Mr.V.Nagendran For Respondents : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar in both WPs Govt.Advocate

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

The prayer in these writ petitions is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the lease period for further period of one year for 2013-2014. The period for which extension is sought for has also expired and hence these writ petitions have become infructuous and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

Assistant Registrar(crl.side)

¶32

/True copy/

¶33

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

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni, The President, Fish Farmers Development Authority. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries)Vaigai Dam,Theni District. 3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Through its Secretary, St.George Fort, Chennai. +1cc to special Government Pleader SR.No.40904

¶38

gsr sm:ARK-PV:09.08.2016:3P/5C

¶39

W.P(MD)Nos.14436 & 14437 of 2013 29.07.2016

¶40

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

M.Murugan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugan, v. the District Collector

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

T. Sangapillai Vs the Government of India

Ramachandran Vs the Commissioner of Police

K.N. Mani, Vs the District Registrar

Minor.M. Shafiya Begam Vs the Director of Postal

M. Pavalakkodi, Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Pavalakkodi Vs the Director of Survey and