A writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order and permission to prosecute was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner's representation on the date of hearing.
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: 26.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
W.P.No.35414 of 2007
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records made in the order dated 18.01.2007 made in the Contempt Petition No.5/2003 passed by the 7th respondent and quash the same and directing the 7th respondent to give permission to prosecute the respondents 1 to 6.
O R D E R
When the above Writ Petition was posted for hearing on 24.09.2019, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence, the matter was posted today “for dismissal”. Even today, (26.09.2019) there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or through the counsel on record. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CJ Conf)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mrp
To
1. The Advocate General,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 83209
W.P. No.35414 of 2007
SS(CO)
GN(06/11/2019)
M. Xavier
R. Mohan Abishekam
Fr. Vincent Durairaj
Fr. Joy Kurien
B.Sahayaraj
S.A. Siluvainathan
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
