The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ appeal filed under Article 226 regarding a quo warranto petition concerning the post of Principal of Dr. Ambedkar Law College Chennai as infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Writ Appeal No.796 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
Maya Manikandan ... Appellant
Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of Legal Studies, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai – 600 010.
3.The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai – 600 028. 4.The Secretary, Bar Council of India, Rose Avenue, New Delhi.
5.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104.
6.The Secretary, UGC, Bhadur Shar Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.
7.S.Narayana Perumal ... Respondents
Prayer:Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of His Lordship Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Chandru, made in W.P.No.2546 of 2013 dated 04.03.2013. Petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution
of India to issue a writ of quo warranto directing the 7th respondent to show cause by what authority he claims to hold the post of the Principal Dr.Ambedkar Law College Chennai and consequently remove the 7th respondent from the post
For Appellant : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.C.Kathirvelu Special Government Pleader For Respondents 3 to 7: No Appearance JUDGMENT (Judgement of the Court was delivered by M.M.Sundresh.J) When the matter came up for hearing toady, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the relief sought for in this writ appeal has become infructuous and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. 2.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the relief sought for in this writ appeal is no longer survives. Hence, this Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm To 1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary to Government, Department of Law, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Director of Legal Studies, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai – 600 010.
3.The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Dr.D.G.S.Dinakaran Salai, Chennai – 600 028.
4.The Secretary, Bar Council of India, Rose Avenue, New Delhi.
5.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court Buildings, Chennai – 600 104. 6.The Secretary, UGC, Bhadur Shar Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. + 1 cc to Mr. T.D. Vasu, Advocate Sr.77005 W.A.No.796 of 2013 VD(CO) EU(04/12/2018 )
Maya Manikandan
State of Tamil Nadu
Director of Legal Studies
M.M. Sundresh
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
