Dismissed

Muthusamy v. the Commissioner

Madras HC14 Nov 2019WP/37097/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writing petitions under Article 226 challenging administrative proceedings, the petitioner appeared unrepresented. Finding the petitioner had no instructions and seemingly abandoned prosecution, the court dismissed the petitions for non-prosecution and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Instructions for Writ of Certiorari were refused and the Writ Petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution.

Muthusamy Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.s 37097 & 37098 of 2007
and
M.P.s 1 & 1 of 2007 and 1 & 1 of 2008
P.Muthusamy ... Petitioner in
both W.P.s
Versus
1. The Commissioner,
HR & CE Administration
Department,
Chennai-34.
2. The Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE Administration
Department,
Trichy-6.
3. P.Kandasamy Mudaliar,
S/o. Periyasami Mudaliar,
Musiri Town,
Trichirappalli. ... Respondents in
both W.P.s

¶6

PRAYER in W.P. 37097 of 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in proceedings R.P. 3/1997 D2, dated 28.09.2007 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

¶7

PRAYER in W.P. 37098 of 2007 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in proceedings A.P. 42/2006 D2, dated 28.09.2007 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja Addl. Govt. Pleader (HR & CE) for R1 AND r2

¶10

Ms.R.Meenal for R3

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Earlier, when the above Writ Petitions were posted for
hearing on 13.11.2019, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submitted that she has no instructions from the
petitioner. Hence, she is withdrawing her appearance. Therefore,
the Registry was directed to print the name of the petitioner in
the cause list.
2. Today, when these matters were called, there is no
representation on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, it appears
that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matters
further. Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed for non-
prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Commissioner,
HR & CE Administration
Department, Chennai-34.

¶13

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

¶14

The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Trichy-6.

¶15

+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate Sr.94674 +1cc to M/s.R.Meenal, Advocate Sr.94787

¶16

W.P.s 37097 & 37098
of 2007
and
M.P.S 1 & 1 of 2007
and 1 & 1 of 2008
ln[co]
srg 12/12/2019

¶17

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

Muthusamy v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthusamy v. the Commissioner

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

The Voluntary Health,Education Vs the Secretary

C.Rajeshwari Vs the Secretary to Government

Mrs. Eagavalli Vs the Secretary to Govt. Home

R.Mahalakshmi, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Vardaria Exporters Vs the Joint Director of Foreign

Kumaravel, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu