Dismissed

M.P.Muruganantham, v. the Registrar General

Madras HC29 Aug 2018WP(MD)/18763/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging transfer orders affecting his service as Head Clerk. The petitioner's counsel sought and obtained permission to withdraw the writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn; closure of connected writ miscellaneous petitions.

M.P.Muruganantham, Vs the Registrar General — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

W.P.(MD) No.18763 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16607 and 16608 of 2018

¶6

M.P.Muruganantham ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

¶9

2.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶10

3.The Principal District Judge, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

¶11

4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.

¶12

5.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of transfer passed by the first respondent in R.O.C.No.39897-A/2018/C1, dated 23.08.2018 and the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in A.No.115/2018/A1/DATEd: 23.08.2018 and quash the both and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue his service as Head Clerk in Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mahendran

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.N.Tamil Mani https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶20

2.In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(W)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

¶26

1.The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. 2.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶27

3.The Principal District Judge, Namakkal District, Namakkal. 4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 5.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.

¶28

+1CC to Mr.K.Mahendran, Advocate, SR.No.80836

¶29

W.P.(MD) No.18763 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16607 and 16608 of 2018 29.08.2018

¶30

SRM

¶31

ES/RP/SAR 2/25.09.2018/2P/7C

¶32

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

M.P.Muruganantham, v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Muruganantham, v. the Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs Thenmozhi, (Died)

P.Muniasamy, S/O. v.Paulchamy Vs the Authorised Officer

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Vs the Sub Registrar

N.T.Bharath Vs the District Collectior

M.Sabeena Begum Vs the District Collector

O.Kumaresan, Vs the Registrar