The petitioner, represented by counsel, submitted that the underlying dispute regarding possession of a plot was resolved and the writ petition had become infructuous. The high court dismissed the petition accordingly.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no costs awarded.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 30.01.2017
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.42008 of 2002
N.K. Rathinam
Petitioner
Vs
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
Chennai-5.
Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent in Lr.Rc.No.13117/EL1/2002 dated 26.09.2002 and quash the
2
same as illegal.
Petitioner : Mr. S.Vediappan
Respondents : Mrs.Vasuda Thiagarajan AGP (|W) for R1 to R3
Mr.Balasaravanakumar – R4.
ORDER
Mr.S.Vediappan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after an initial period of injunction limited to eight weeks, the possession of the plot in question was handed over to a third party. Hence nothing survives in this Writ Petition and he does not wish to pursue the same further.
30.01.2017
Index: Yes/No
msr
3
To
4
DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J.
msr
W.P.No.42008 of 2002
30.01.2017
N.K. Rathinam
Government of Tamilnadu
The Director of Industries and Commerce
The General Manager, The District Industries Centre
Sivaramakrishnan
Dr. Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
