This court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 as infructuous because the petitioner's counsel had submitted that no issues survived in the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.No.14857 of 2004
K.Muthusamy ...Petitioner
vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Order made in Na.Ka.No.18134/2002/Sa.Pa., dt. 10.06.2003, on the file of the 2nd respondent confirming the order of the 1st respondent dt. 09.09.2002 of removing the petitioner from his service as Sales Man at the South Karungulam Ration Shop for the proved charges and Quash the same and also consequently directing respondents to reinstate /the petitioner in his employment as Sales Man with all the back wages and other benefits without any break of service from 09.09.2002.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram AGP ORDER
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is nothing survives in the writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Pam
To
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Muthusamy
The Special Officer, 0.70 Palavoor Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank Ltd
The Joint Registrar, Tirunelveli District Co-operative Societies
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
