A writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was closed as infructuous after the petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ had no practical utility. Connected miscellaneous petition was also closed without costs.
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.
W.P(MD)No.6609 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2019 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.6609 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011
A.Packiam
... Petitioner
vs.
1.Nagarathinam
2.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Collectorate Office, Sivagangai.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for entire records relating to the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by the second respondent in Moo.Mu.B4/34416/2009 and quash the same.
ORDER
Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that instant Writ Petition has become infructuous.
2.Recording the aforesaid submission, instant Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
1/2
W.P(MD)No.6609 of 2011
To
The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Collectorate Office, Sivagangai.
+1 CC to GP SR-97267.
+1 CC to M/s.M. MOHANA SUNDARAM, Advocate SR-97461.
W.P(MD)No.6609 of 2011 08.11.2019
CS(22.11.2019) 2P 4C
2/2
A. Packiam
Nagarathinam
The District Revenue Officer
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
