A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed as infructuous due to a filed endorsement indicating the prayer became fruitless.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA
The Superintendent of Prison (i/c), Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai – 66.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in Rc.No.4607/G1/2008, dated 22.08.2008, order dated 03.10.2008 in No.4607/G1/2008 on the file of the respondent insofar as the petitioner is concerned and quash the same.
When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous and to that effect, he has also made an endorsement. Recording the said endorsement, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.
rkm
MR(CO)
RRS(31/05/2019)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Superintendent of Prison (i/c), Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai – 66
T. RAJA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
