Writ petition under Article 226 challenging an impugned charge memo was dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner's counsel, who submitted there was nothing left for adjudication.
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 18.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN
W.P.No.11373 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
A.M.Manickam ... Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem. ... Respondent
PRAYER:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned charge memo dated 07.08.2007 in PR.No.18/B1/2007 – C.No.8726/812/B1/2004-PR.No.124/H1/2007 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar for Mr.T.Panchatsaram
For Respondent : Mr.J.Pothiraj for Spl. Govt. Pleader O R D E R
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition and hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the writ petition as not pressed and he has also made an endorsement to the effect.
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kal To
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.
W.P.No.11373 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
SP(06/06/2018)
A.M.Manickam
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem.
V.Parthiban
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
