Dismissed

I.Siraj Ahamed v. The Commissioner

Madras HC12 Jul 2021WP/8642/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing removal of a blockage for his shop license renewal. The Court was informed by the Standing Counsel for respondents that the requirement was complied with and the blockage removed. Consequently, the petition stood dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous having survived no cause of action.

I.Siraj Ahamed Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.7.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.8642 of 2021

¶6

I.Siraj Ahamed S/o. Janab M Ibrahim Sahib, No 113/51, Bharathi Salai, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Chennai- 5 ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

¶9

2 The Revenue officer, Greater Chenani Corporation, Chennai.

¶10

3 The Zonal officer, Zone- 9 Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporaton, No 1 Lake View Area, 4th Cross street, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 34

¶11

4 The Assistant Revenue officer, Zone- 9 Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, lake view Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 34. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents in particular the 4th respondent to remove the blockage for renewal of license vide No 09-116-00 1694 pertaining to the Petitioners shop situated at Door No. 11/57, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Chennai-5 based on the petitioner's representation, dated 5.3.2021. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentsCorporation has submitted before this Court the petitioner has complied with the requirement as mentioned by the respondents and the blockage for renewal of license was also removed therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶16

Recording the said statement made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

¶23

1 The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation,Chennai.

¶24

2 The Revenue officer, Greater Chenani Corporation,Chennai.

¶25

3 The Zonal officer, Zone- 9 Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporaton, No 1 Lake View Area, 4th Cross street, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 34

¶26

4 The Assistant Revenue officer, Zone- 9 Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.1, lake view Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 34.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.P.T.Ramadevi, Advocate, S.R.No. 32980

¶28

+1cc to Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 32877

¶29

W.P.No.8642 of 2021 GPL(CO) GN(13/08/2021)

¶30

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

I.Siraj Ahamed v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Siraj Ahamed v. The Commissioner

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

R.Thangavelu Vs The State of TamilNadu

The General Manager Vs R.Murali

Thiru.Param Nursery & Vs The Director

P.Mahalakshmi Vs Tamilnadu Forest Department

K.Balasubramaniyam Vs The Principal secretary to Government

K.Senthil Vs The Principal secretary to Government