Dismissed

V.Subramanian v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Dec 2020WP/22499/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to take disciplinary action against a Noon Meal Organiser for offences under IPC Sections 341 and 323. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous as the second respondent had already taken disciplinary action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with an order to close the connected miscellaneous petition.

V.Subramanian Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.12.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.P.No.22499 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.27221 of 2004

¶6

V.Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by its Secretary to
Social Welfare & Noon Meal Scheme,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Valapadi Panchayat Union,
Salem District.
4.D.Murugan
Noon Meal Organiser,
183, Ayodha Pattam Road, Valapadi Taluk,
Salem District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to take disciplinary
action against Mr.Murugan for the misconduct and offence
committed under Sec.341 & 323 of IPC in Crime No.23/03 at
once.

¶7

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.P.Chinnadurai [R1 to R3] Additional Government Pleader No appearance [R4]

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to take disciplinary action against the fourth respondent for the misconduct and offence committed under Sec.341 & 323 of IPC in Crime No.23/03 at once.

¶10

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

¶11

Page numbers

¶12

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the second respondent had already taken action against the fourth respondent vide proceedings dated 22.06.2004 and therefore, the relief sought for in this writ petition has already been taken effect to and nothing survives in this writ petition to be adjudicated upon further. He has also produced a copy of the same before this Court.

¶14

Recording the submission made by the learned
Additional Government Pleader, nothing survives in this writ
petition for further adjudication. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sni
To
1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu,
Social Welfare & Noon Meal Scheme,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District.
3.The Block Development Officer,
Valapadi Panchayat Union,
Salem District.
+1cc to the Government Pleader SR.41687
W.P.No.22499 of 2004
NRL(CO)
CB(02/02/2021)

¶15

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

¶16

Page numbers

V.Subramanian v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Subramanian v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

R.Shanmugam Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.K.Narayanaswamy Vs the Assistant Director of

A.Juliet Rupala Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Daisy Ragini Vs Pradeep Yadav I.A.S

A.Natarajan,S/O.K.C.Arunachala Vs Tmt.D.Sabitha, I.A.S.

V.Nigalanandan Vs a.Amalraj IPS