Allowed

Tvl.Aparajitha Property v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC15 Feb 2017WP(MD)/11/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application, the Madurai Bench allowed the review of an earlier order. The Court recalled the previous judgment considering that the petitioner's counsel had arguable points in the original writ petition, without delving into procedural lapses regarding non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 19.12.2016 is recalled; the writ petition is posted before the regular Court.

Tvl.Aparajitha Property Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

¶3

Dated : 11.02.2019

¶4

Coram:

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.S.RAMESH

¶6

Review Application (MD) No.11 of 2017 in W.P.(MD) No.10871 of 2013

¶7

Ganeshamoorthi Rajathi .. Petitioner/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Secretary, Indian Nursing Council, Combined Councils Building, Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New Delhi-110 002.

¶10

2.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. University, rep. by its Registrar, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶11

3.The Principal, Matha College of Nursing, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents/Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Review Application filed under Section 114 r/w. Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in W.P.(MD) No.10871 of 2013 by the learned Judge of this Court.

¶13

Prayer in WP(MD). 10871/ 2013 :

¶14

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Regulation No. 26 isued by the Respondent No. 1 Vide File No. 1-5(GB)Cir/2011 dated 03/01/2012 which read as, The number of attempts for examination has been waived off. However to appear for final year examination, the candidate shall have cleared all the previous examination will operate propspectively for the students to be admitted after the date of Resulution by the Respondent No. 1.ie. 03/01/2012.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Radha Krishnan

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This matter has been taken up for hearing today through “Video Conferencing”.

¶20

2.The Review Applicant/Petitioner has preferred the instant Review Application as against the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.10871 of 2013 dated 19.12.2016.

¶21

3.Heard the learned counsel for the review applicant/petitioner.

¶22

4.It is represented by the learned counsel for the Review Applicant/Petitioner that he did not appear before this Court on 19.12.2016 and has also not made an endorsement that the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶23

5.I do not intend to probe into the matter as to the presence of the petitioner's counsel or the endorsement so made. Since the petitioner's counsel represents that he has arguable points in the Writ Petition, the order dated 19.12.2016 is hereby recalled.

¶24

6.In the result, the Review application stands allowed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.

¶25

7.Registry is directed to post the writ petition before the regular Court on 18.02.2019.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary,

¶32

Indian Nursing Council, Combined Councils Building, Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New Delhi-110 002.

¶33

2.The Registrar,

¶34

Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Copy to:

The Section Officer,

Judicial Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.G.RadhaKrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.46105 Review Application (MD) No.11 of 2017 in W.P.(MD) No.10871 of 2013

¶41

KK/RSK/SAR-4 (14.02.2019) 3P 5C

¶42

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

Tvl.Aparajitha Property v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl.Aparajitha Property v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

Saravanan Alias Saravana Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

P.J. Janardhanan, Vs the Director General of Police

N.Samdurai Vs the Principal Secretary to

A.Amutha Vs the Principal Accountant

C.Noble, S/O Chellayyan, Vs the District Collector