Petitioner challenged failure to dispose of an application for subsistence allowance. Court found matter infructuous due to a filed memo and dismissed petition as such.
Writ 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 : 06.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 3835 of 2012
D.Manivasagam ...Petitioner
-vs-
Chennai – 600 006.
Chennai – 600 005. ...Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, praying to direct the First Respondent to dispose of the Application P.S.A. 15 of 2011 on the file of the First Respondent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1981) within a time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr. J.Muthukumaran
For Respondents : Mr. C.Harsha Raj, Government Counsel (for R1)
Mr. L.P.Shanmugasundaram, Standing Counsel (for R2)
O R D E R
(through video conference)
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the matter has become infructuous and he has filed a memo dated 06.10.2021 to that effect through e-mail, which is placed on record.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vjt/skr
To
W.P. No. 3835 of 2012
NMI(CO) SP(22/10/2021)
D.Manivasagam
The Assistant Commissioner of Labour
The Special Officer
P.D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
