Dismissed

A.Meenakshi Sundaram v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC9 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21072/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash a Government Order and direct the framing of service rules. The court noted the petitioner sought permission to withdraw, which was endorsed, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn and closure of connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No costs.

A.Meenakshi Sundaram Vs the Secretary… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.21072 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18864 & 18865 of 2018

¶7

A.Meenakshi Sundaram ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu

¶10

Tourism Culture and Religious Department Fort St.George, Chennai-09

¶11

The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department

¶12

Chennai-34

¶13

The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswar Temple Madurai-1 ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to G.O.(D) No.80 dated 20.07.2018 of Tourism Culture and Religious Endowments RE2-1 Department of 1^st Respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to frame the Comprehensive Service rule within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.R.Sethuraman Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan for R3

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

When this Court expressed its view to dismiss the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of this Court to withdraw the writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶18

¶19

2. In view of the endorsement so made, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (Crl.side)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶24

To:

¶25

The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Tourism Culture and Religious Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

¶26

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai-34.

¶27

1 CC TO Mr.C.M.ARUMUGAM, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 89682

¶28

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 89009

¶29

KRK

¶30

TE/RP/SAR-4 : 26/10/2018 : 2P/5C

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.21072 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18864 & 18865 of 2018 09.10.2018

¶32

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

A.Meenakshi Sundaram v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Meenakshi Sundaram v. the Secretary to Govt.

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

Muthukrishnan Vs the District Revenue Officer

P.Saravana Kumar Vs the District Collector

R.Selvi, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Mayakkal, Vs the Tahsildar

Lakshmi, D/O. Late Chennappa Vs the District Collector

Deepa, W/O.B.Murugesan Vs the Union of India, Rep. by It