A writ petition filed for protection against eviction order was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear on multiple occasions after listing under 'for dismissal'.
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: 08.10.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.17080 of 2010
and M.P.No.1 of 2010
C.Geetha Haripriya ... Petitioner
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner till the respondent pass an order u/s 5 of the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975 for the eviction of occupation of petitioner's premises.
Petitioner : Dr.C.Geetha Haripriya – no appearance For Respondents : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok,
Standing Counsel – Corporation
O R D E R
When the matter was listed for hearing on 24.09.2020, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has given change of vakalat and handed over the papers to the petitioner long back for engaging some other counsel. In these circumstances, the Registry was directed to verify whether any counsel had filed change of vakalat for the petitioner, if so, to print the name of the counsel for the petitioner, if not, to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list and to list the matter on 01.10.2020. On verification, the Registry informed
that no counsel had filed change of vakalat on behalf of the petitioner. When the matter was listed for hearing on 01.10.2020 printing the name of the petitioner, none appeared for her, hence, the Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption “for dismissal” on 07.10.2020. Though the matter has been listed under the caption “for dismissal”, printing the name of the petitioner, today also, none appeared for the petitioner and hence, this Court has no other option, except to dismiss the Writ Petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
va
To
1.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Land and Estate,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
3.The Commissioner and Estate Officer,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building,
Chennai – 600 003.
W.P.No.17080 of 2010
and M.P.No.1 of 2010
NR(CO)
RMP(09/11/2020)
C. Geetha Haripriya
Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
District Revenue Officer, Land and Estate, Corporation of Chennai
Commissioner and Estate Officer, Corporation of Chennai
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
