P.Mathialagan v. the Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
A writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear on the prescribed hearing dates after the court noticed a lack of instructions.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.11.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
W.P. No.19633 of 2004
P.Mathialagan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Kulithalai Panchayat Union,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The President,
Inungur Village Panchayat,
Inungur, Karur District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the President, Inungur Panchayat, Inungur, the third respondent herein, made in Na.Ka.No.1/2004 dated 03.06.2004 and quash the same and directing the respondents herein to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential service and monetary benefits including the regularization of the suspension period and pay all the arrears due to the petitioner within a date that may be fixed by this Court.
When the matter was listed for hearing on 06.11.2019, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of writing registered letters to the petitioner, he has received no instructions from the petitioner. Therefore, the
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
P. Mathialagan
- respondent
The Collector, Karur District
- respondent
The Block Development Officer, Kulithalai Panchayat Union
- respondent
The President, Inungur Village Panchayat
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court