The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition filed for quashing mining orders and directing execution of a lease agreement. The court recorded the withdrawal and dismissed the petition accordingly, making no order as to costs.
Withdrawal of the writ petition recorded; petition dismissed.
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 : 16-12-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.30243 of 2016
M/s.Madhucon Granites Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr.Mallikarjuna Rao, 1-7-70 Madhu Complex, Jublipura, Khammam – 507 003, Telangana State. ..Petitioner vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent letter bearing No.16875/MMB.2/2015-2 dated 21.07.2016 confirming the order passed by the second respondent bearing No.RC.No.5471/MM9/2015 dated 17.02.2016 and the order bearing Roc.No.204/2015-Mines dated 18.06.2015 of the third respondent and quash the same and further direct the fourth respondent to execute mining lease agreement in the patta lands at S.F.Nos.270/1 part (1.16.5 hectares) and 271/A1A part (0.86.0 hectares) of patta lands situate at K.Pichampatti Village, Karur Taluk, Karur District by extending the time limit and without insisting on the production of mining dues clearance certificate
from the third respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, Additional Government Pleader.
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission through the Video Conferencing Mode that he wants to withdraw the writ petition. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also addressed a letter dated 06.11.2020 to the Registry vide USR No.20786.
2. Recording the abovesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also his letter addressed to the Registry, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Svn
To
WP 30243 of 2016
SPD(CO) CT 29/12/2021
M/s. Madhucon Granites Ltd.
The Government of Tamil Nadu
The Commissioner of Geology and Mining
The District Collector, Madurai District
The District Collector, Karur District
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
