Dismissed

Graphite Publicities v. the Metropolitan

Madras HC16 Sept 2019WP/16104/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions and one miscellaneous petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were heard. Counsel submitted that the prayers became infructuous. The court dismissed the petitions as infructuous, consequently closing connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Graphite Publicities Vs the Metropolitan — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.Nos. 16104, 16137, 16160 & 17677 of 2004 and W.M.P.Nos.19065, 19106, 19085, 21028 of 2004 Graphite Publicities, rep. by its Proprietrix Sudha, NO.11, 14th street, Nandanam Extn., Chennai 600 035. ... Petitioner in W.P.16104/2004 Excellent Ads, rep. by its Proprietor, R.M.V.Balasubramaniam, 23/2, Radha Easwari GardenApartments, Cartman Street, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032 ... Petitioner in W.P.16137/2004 Vaishnavi Images, rep. by its Managing Partner, Anupama Reddy, AC-61, 5th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040 ... Petitioner in W.P.16160/2004 M/s. Apurva Enterprises, rep. by its Proprietrix, Ashvini Ravi, R-1, 6th Avenue, 1st floor, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 ... Petitioner in W.P.17677/2004 Vs

¶6

The Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited rep. by its,Managing Director, Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002 ... Respondent in all W.Ps

¶7

PRAYER in W.P.No.16104 of 2004 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent relating to the impugned order dated 07.05.2004, bearing ref.Lr.No.218/003368/TTE&G/SHE/MTC/04 and quash the same.

¶8

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

¶9

PRAYER in W.P.No.16137 of 2004 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent relating to the impugned order dated 07.05.2004, bearing ref.Lr.No.213/003363/TTE&G/SHE/MTC/04 and quash the same.

¶10

PRAYER in W.P.No.16160 of 2004 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent relating to the impugned order dated 07.05.2004, bearing ref.Lr.No.323/003473/TTE&G/SHE/MTC/04 and quash the same.

¶11

PRAYER in W.P.No.17677 of 2004 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from taking over the bus shelters allotted to the petitioner except under process of law .

¶12

Today, when these matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the prayer sought for in these writ petitions have become infructuous.

¶13

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, nothing survives for further adjudication in the writ petitions. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶14

mrp

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Pallavan House, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002

¶18

+4 CCS to M/s. King and Partridge, sr 79825, 79826, 79814, 79823.

¶19

W.P. Nos.16104, 16137,
16160 & 17677 of 2004
SV(CO)
SP(03/12/2019)

¶20

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

Graphite Publicities v. the Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Graphite Publicities v. the Metropolitan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiraz Farhan Kokan Vs The Regional Passport Officer

R.Ganesan, S/o.Ramasamy Vs The Regional Manager (Sg)

N.Ashok Vs the Director of Employment &

S.Ponniah Vs the Executive Engineer and

M/S. R.v.N.Agencies Vs Union of India

Joseph Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate