Dismissed

G.Marimuthu v. 1.STATE of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Madras HC8 Dec 2017WP/31719/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of declaration regarding the illegal continuance of the 3rd respondent in the office of Public Prosecutor. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the respondent was no longer holding the office, rendering the issue moot.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

G.Marimuthu Vs 1.STATE of Tamilnadu Rep.by — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.31719 of 2003 and W.M.P.No.35806 of 2003

¶2

G.Marimuthu … Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government Law Departments, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶5

2.The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Virudhunagar Dt. Virudhunagar.

¶6

3.K.Nallathambi 4.K.Raju 5.Mangalasamy … Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Declaration to declare the continuance of the 3^rd respondent in the office of the Public Prosecutor Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur as illegal.

¶8

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai, Govt. Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.A.Jenasenan for R5

¶9

Dismissed as against R3&R4 vide order dated 05.08.2011

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Declaration, declaring the continuance of the 3^rd respondent in the office of the Public Prosecutor, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, as illegal.

¶12

2.When the case was called on 07.12.2017, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, it is posted today. Even today when the case is called, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶13

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

¶14

3.Mr.M.Elumalai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr.A.Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 would submit that the issue raised in this Writ Petition has become infructuous as the 3^rd respondent is no more continuing in the office of the District Public Prosecutor and hence, the very prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is not required to be adjudicated any more.

¶15

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the issue raised in this Writ Petition has become infructuous and no further adjudication is required, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

speaking order /non speaking order

¶21

mps

¶22

To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Law Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶23

2.The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Virudhunagar Dt. at Virudhunagar.

¶24

sm:1.2.2018

¶25

W.P.No.31719 of 2003 and W.M.P.No.35806 of 2003

¶26

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

G.Marimuthu v. 1.STATE of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Marimuthu v. 1.STATE of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Xavier Vs the Govt of Tamilnadu, Rep by

V.Adharathiah Vs 1.THE Govt., of India, Rep.by

A.J.Antany Raj Vs 1.THE Director of Employment

M/S.Senthil Oxygen Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Tamilnadu

The Bishop - Chairman Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Subbaraya Gounder Vs Chairman, T.N.E.B.,800