Disposed

Mrs.Lokanayagi v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC26 Sept 2018WP/17481/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras closed a writ petition challenging a petition filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the respondent-petitioner had died, rendering the cause of action vanished.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed with no order as to costs.

Mrs.Lokanayagi Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :26.09.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.No.17481 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1,2,3 of 2013 and W.M.P.No.28018 of 2018

¶6

1.Mrs.Lokanayagi

¶7

2.Minor Sathya Priya

¶8

3.Minor Banureka Petitioners 1 to 3 all are residing at New No.1/11 C, Siruvani Main Road, Kalampalayam, Teethipalayam, Coimbatore. ..Petitioners

¶9

¶10

1.Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.

¶11

2.M.Ramasamy @ Othimalai Gounder .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records in proceedings in Petition Na.Ka.No.0922/2013 on the file of the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioners : M/s.C.R.Prasanan

¶14

For Respondents :Mr.A.Ansar, Government Advocate for R1 Mr.R.SreeRangan for R2

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the 2^nd respondent, who is the petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer cum Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents Senior Citizens Act 2007, passed away. Further, the present writ petition is filed, challenging the petition filed by the 2^nd respondent before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶16

2.This being the factum of the case, the cause aroused for filing of the present writ petition became vanished. Thus, no further adjudication needs to be entertained in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respect of the grounds raised in this writ petition.

¶17

3.Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS v) //True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore.

¶22

+1cc to Mr.C.R.Prasanan , Advocate SR.No. 66964 +2ccs to Mr.R.SreeRangan , Advocate SR.No. 67211 +1 CC TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.NO. 67076

¶23

W.P.No.17481 of 2013

¶24

ASK(12/10/2018)

¶25

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

Mrs.Lokanayagi v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Lokanayagi v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.G.Helen, Vs The Tahsildar

C.Sakthivel Vs The State of Tamilnadu

E.MADASAMY(PPO.NO.R03191400 Vs Mr.Hansraj Varma I.A.S.

Hill Country Hotels & Holiday Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

Chinnakrishnappa Vs The District Collector

C.Velmurugan Vs The Secretary to Government