Dismissed

T.Kalaimani v. Union of India Rep.

Madras HC7 Jan 2021WP/19464/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed an energy writ petition seeking a mandate to the Director of Census Operation. The petition was repeatedly adjourned due to the petitioner's counsel failing to appear. Listing it for a fourth time, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution as no representative could be found on the scheduled hearing date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No costs awarded.

T.Kalaimani Vs Union of India Rep. — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Date : 07.01.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.19464 of 2007

¶6

T.Kalaimani ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. 1. Union of India represented by The Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2-A, Man Singh Road, New Delhi - 1.

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Placement Cell) Dept. Fort St. George, Madras - 9.

¶9

Director of Census Operation 110, Egmore High Road, Madras - 600 008. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to follow the G.O.Ms.No.341 dated 13.10.92 and act accordingly.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents 2 & 3: Ms.Bhuvaneswari

¶12

Additional Government Pleader

¶13

ORDER

¶14

When this writ petition came up for hearing on 06.01.2021, there was no representation and earlier occasion also, there was no representation. Noting all these developments, this Court passed the following order on 06.01.2021:

¶15

"When the case is called, none appeared for the petitioner. As per the earlier proceedings, when the case came up for hearing on 03.11.2020, 24.11.2020 and 11.12.2020, none appeared for the petitioner and on all those occasions, my learned Predecessor had adjourned the matter for some days.

¶16

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

¶17

Therefore, this case is listed for fourth time in a row, where continuously the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.

¶18

Hence, post the matter under the caption "For Dismissal" on 07.01.2021."

¶19

2.Accordingly, the case is listed today under the caption

¶20

"For Dismissal" and today also, when the case is taken up for hearing, no one is appearing for the petitioner.

¶21

3.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed for

¶22

want of prosecution. No costs.

¶23

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
Sgl
To
1. The Registrar General
and Census Commissioner,
Union of India
2-A, Man Singh Road,
New Delhi - 1.
2. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Personnel & Administrative
Reforms (Placement Cell) Dept.
Fort St. George, Madras - 9.
3. The Director of Census Operation
110, Egmore High Road,
Madras - 600 008.
+1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 1224
W.P.No.19464 of 2007

¶24

SRII(CO) SP(03/02/2021)

¶25

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

T.Kalaimani v. Union of India Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Kalaimani v. Union of India Rep.

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

C.R.Chandrasekaran Vs Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by

Dr.N.Mathiyalagan, M.a.,Mphil, Vs Bharathiar University

D. Narayanan Vs the General Manager

C.Vinayagam, Vs the Managing Director

C.Chinnakannu Vs the Chief Executive Officer

A. Babu Vs the Chairman