Dismissed

S.Deepasri v. The Secretary

Madras HC7 Mar 2019WP/6451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to control RO plant manufacturers regarding water can attachment methods. Court noted even notice need not be issued. Writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to file a fresh petition with averaged documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

S.Deepasri Vs The Secretary — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:7/3/2019

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶7

Writ Petition No.6451 of 2019

¶8

S. Deepasri ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Park Town
Chennai 600 003. ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, to directing the respondents to issue appropriate directions/regulations/norms to control the manufacturers/owners of REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) Mineral Water Plants and dealers of RO Water Suppliers thereby directing them to revert the earlier method of water can attached with taps along with two handles as a single unit.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy

¶11

O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)

¶12

Instant writ petition has been filed, to direct the respondents to issue appropriate directions/regulations/norms, to control the manufacturers/owners of REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) Mineral Water Plants and dealers of RO Water Suppliers thereby directing them to revert the earlier method of water can attached with taps along with two handles, as a single unit.

¶13

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

¶14

2. On the basis of the averments with supporting documents, though Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions, we expressed that even notice cannot be issued.

¶15

3. Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition with averments and supporting documents for the prayer sought for. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶16

In view of the submission and endorsement made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed
as withdrawn. Liberty is granted, as prayed for.
mvs
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner
Corporation of Chennai
Park Town
Chennai 600 003.
+1cc to Mr.S.V.Ramamurthy, Advocate, S.R.No.21205
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21790
W.P.No.6451 of 2019
kak(11/03/2019)

¶17

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

S.Deepasri v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Deepasri v. The Secretary

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

Dr.Ambedkar Renaissance Vs The Home Department.

Shark Dyeing Mills Vs G.v.Ravikumar

T.Senthil Vs The Assistant Director

P.Rathinam, Advocate Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Karunanidhi, Vs The Chief Secretary to Government

N.Madeshwaran, Vs The District Collector