Disposed

The Management of Tamilnadu v. the Deputy Chief Inspector

Madras HC11 Jun 2018WP/7807/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition against an award for arrears due to non-appearance of the second respondent. The court noted it could not adjudicate effectively without the absent party and allowed the petitioner to revive proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed on the ground of absence of the second respondent; door open to revive the petition.

The Management of Tamilnadu Vs the Deputy Chief… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.06.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P.No.7807 of 2004

¶6

The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Dn.II) Ltd Thiruchirappalli.

¶7

... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories Kaja Nagar, Trichy-20.

¶9

2.V.Asokan ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in N.E.No.908 -2001 dated 01.12.2003 and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatachalam For Respondents: Mr.K.S.Suresh, Government Advocate [For R1] R2-Dismissed vide court order dated 31.01.2008

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Aggrieved against the award No.N.E.No.908 -2001 dated 01.12.2003 passed by the first respondent granting relief to the second respondent, the writ petition has been filed.

¶14

2.The operative portion of the order of this court dated 31.10.2008 made in W.P.M.P.No.9264 of 2004 in W.P.No.7807 of 2004 reads as follows:-

¶15

"2.The Batta has not been paid till today.

¶16

3.On further oral request made by the counsel for the appellant time is extended finally upto 10.11.2008, failing which, the petition as against the respondent No.2 in W.P. shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the court."

¶17

3.Since steps have not been taken by the petitioner even thereafter, the writ petition stands dismissed against the second

¶18

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

¶19

respondent as per the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2008 passed by this court.

¶20

4.In the absence of the second respondent, it would not be possible by this court to make an effective adjudication in this matter and hence, the writ petition stands disposed accordingly. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to take appropriate steps to get the order of dismissal against the second respondent set aside and revive the writ petition in the manner recognized by law. No costs.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Co)

¶22

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
maya
To
1.Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories
Kaja Nagar, Trichy-20.
+1cc to Mr.D.VENKATACHALAM, Advocate, S.R.No. 36712
W.P.No.7807 of 2004
VBA(CO)
TR(21/06/2018)

¶23

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

The Management of Tamilnadu v. the Deputy Chief Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Tamilnadu v. the Deputy Chief Inspector

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

Femi @ Wiseline Femina Rose Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Devadigsmsni Vs the District Collector

C. Thambappan Vs the Tahsildar Cum Record of

Selvakulendran Vs State of Tamilnadu, Rep by

Dr. G. Anantha Padmanabhan Vs the Secy. and Correspondent

Vs