S.S.Chandran Babu v. the State of Tamil Nadu
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court closed a writ petition filed for issuance of a Quo Warranto against the Vice-Chancellor of Bharathidasan University, declaring it infructuous based on counsel's submission and party's endorsement.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was closed as infructuous with no costs awarded.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD) No.16041 of 2014
S.S.Chandran Babu ... Petitioner
-vs-
- The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
- University Grants Commission, Rep. By its Chairman, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002.
- Dr.V.M.Muthu Kumar
- Bharathidasan University, Rep. by the Registrar, Tiruchirappalli-620 024.
- The Search Committee, Rep. by its Convenor, Prof.Dr.Karu.Nagarajan, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli-620 024. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto to show cause under what authority the 3rd respondent continues to hold the office of the Vice Chancellor 4th Respondent University.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking Quo Warranto against the Vice-Chancellor is maintainable or has become infructuous.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.S.Chandran Babu
- respondent
The State of Tamil Nadu
Coram
S. Vaidyanathan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court