Dismissed
C.Thangaraj v. the Commissioner
Madras HCWP/17993/2003
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging municipal proceedings was dismissed for default due to the absence of the petitioners' representatives on the listed dates.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
¶2
DATED : 01.03.2017
¶3
CORAM
¶4
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
¶5
W.P.No.17993 of 2003 and
¶6
W.V.M.P.No.296 of 2006
¶7
and W.V.M.P.No.2269 of 2004
¶8
- C.Thangaraj 2. K.Ramesh 3. R.Murugan 4. L.Palaniswamy 5. A.Kanagaraj 6. K.Ramasamy 7. K.Vijay Kumar 8. T.P.Myilswamy ..Petitioners vs.
¶9
- The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Coimbatore – 641 001. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department. Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 3. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 4. M.Kumaresan 5. K.Jagan Raj 6. N.Nagaraj 7. R.Umanath 8. R.Gnanasekaran 9. K.Gopal 10. K.Manivannan 11. B.Mathivanan 12. S.K.Gopalakrishnan 13. S.Prakash 14. R.Damodharan 15. A.Natarajan 16. C.Manikandan 17. A.Selvan 18. S.Palanisamy
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
C. Thangaraj and others
- respondent
The Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
- respondent
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Coram
AI extract
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court