The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Collector to consider a representation based on earlier proceedings. The court accepted the submission that the matter had become infructuous and dismissed the petition accordingly.
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.
W.P.(MD)No.9512 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.10.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.9512 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008
P.Thangakalyani
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The District Collector Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner
Prohibition and Excise,
Madurai.
3.The Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Kappalur, Madurai.
4.P.Rajasekar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.10.08 based on the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.1607/08/A1 dated 08.09.2008.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anand Kumar
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.C.Ramesh, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has now become infructuous.
1/2
W.P.(MD)No.9512 of 2008
2.Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CO)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
rm
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The District Collector Madurai.
2.The Assistant Commissioner Prohibition and Excise, Madurai.
W.P.(MD)No.9512 of 2008
16.10.2020
NR (21/12/2020) 2P : 3C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Thangakalyani
The District Collector Madurai
The Assistant Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Madurai
The Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Kappalur Madurai
P.Rajasekar
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
