Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of a notice was dismissed as infructuous. The petitioner submitted via counsel that the relief sought had become infructuous, and the court accepted this submission without adjudicating the merits.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; no 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
The Aminjikarai Mosque & Burial Ground Committee, Represented by its Secretary, T.A. Sheik Mohammed, No.685, E.V.R. Periyar High Road, (Poonamallee High Road) Aminjikarai, Chennai – 29. ...Petitioner Vs
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice No.9/10-11/8614 dated 06.09.2010 passed by the Third Respondent herein, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi For R1-R5 : Mr. P.T. Ramadevi For R6 : Mr. P. Wilson
ORDER
When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the relief sought for herein has become infructuous and hence, nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ Petition and also made an endorsement to that effect.
W.P. No. 27242 of 2010
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2010
BP(CO)
SP(20/07/2020)
The Aminjikarai Mosque & Burial Ground Committee
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
The Revenue Officer, Zone V, Corporation of Chennai
The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone V, Corporation of Chennai
The Zonal Officer, Zone V, Corporation of Chennai
The Additional Revenue Officer, Corporation of Chennai
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
