The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a service connection order was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear despite repeated adjournments and a promised change of vakalat.
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: 26.08.2020
CORAM :
The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.P.No.26499 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 & 1 of 2014
V.Rajamani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thadandar Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 2.V.M.Nazhir Ahamed ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to proceed with providing a service connection to the 2nd respondent under a false door number in respect of petitioner premises at No.14/11, Mosque Garden East Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajamani – no appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar, Standing Counsel – R1 Mr.T.Velumani (R2) O R D E R
Consistently, there is no representation for the petitioner. When the matter was listed for hearing on 13.07.2020, Mr.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they had given change of vakalat and handed over the papers to the petitioner for engaging some other counsel. Recording the said submission, the Registry was directed to verify whether any counsel had filed change of vakalat. On verification, the Registry found that no counsel had filed change of vakalat on behalf of the petitioner, hence, the name of the petitioner was printed in the cause list and the matter was listed on 20.07.2020. On 20.07.2020, since no one appeared for the petitioner, the Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption “for dismissal” on 22.07.2020. When the matter was listed on 22.07.2020, a representation was made on behalf of Mr.C.P.Sasikumar that he is going to file change of vakalat on behalf of the petitioner
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Page numbers
and sought a week's time to file change of vakalat. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 29.07.2020 to file change of vakalat. On 29.07.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time till 17.08.2020 for filing change of vakalat. When the matter was listed on 17.08.2020, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, hence, the matter was again adjourned to 21.08.2020. When the matter was listed on 21.08.2020 also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, hence, the Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption “for dismissal” on 26.08.2020 (i.e.) today. Though the matter has been listed under the caption “for dismissal”, today also, none appeared for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that Mr.C.P.Sasikumar, learned counsel, who undertook to file change of vakalat on behalf of the petitioner has not filed change of vakalat so far, 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 petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va To 1.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Thadandar Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. W.P.No.26499 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 & 1 of 2014 SR(CO) CB(14/10/2020)
Page numbers
V.Rajamani
The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO
V.M.Nazhir Ahamed
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
