Dismissed

C. Santhoshkumar v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Feb 2021WP/9680/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition filed in 2012 for non-prosecution. The petition, seeking certification and quashing of an order regarding silent sand seizure, remained pending despite repeated adjournment requests by the petitioner's counsel. The Court inferred a lack of interest by the petitioner and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

C. Santhoshkumar Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.02.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.NO.9680 OF 2012 AND

¶6

M.P.NO.2 OF 2012

¶7

C.Santhoshkumar .... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collecotr,
Thiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology,
Collectorate, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Tahsildar,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
5. The Tahsildar,
Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur Distrit.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.
7. The Assistant Geologist,
Geology and Mines, Collectorate,
Tiruvallur .... Respondents
Prayer:

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.394/2012/G&M-2, dated 04.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents not to seize the vehicles which are transporting silica sand under cover of permit and transit form issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr.K.Parameshwaran Government Advocate.

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal”, today. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further time to get instructions. As seen from the earlier proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been repeatedly seeking adjournments in this matter. The matter relates in the year 2012. Therefore, it can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P is closed.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
srn
To
1. The District Collecotr,
Thiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology,
Collectorate, Tiruvallur, Tiruvallur District.
4. The Tahsildar, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.
5. The Tahsildar,
Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur Distrit.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur District.
7. The Assistant Geologist,
Geology and Mines, Collectorate, Tiruvallur
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.11165

¶14

W.P.No.9680 of 2012 and M.P.No.2 of 2012

¶15

AK(CO) CS/18/03/2021

¶16

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

C. Santhoshkumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C. Santhoshkumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Balaji Enterprises (Pondy) Private Limited Vs The Union of India

M/s.Balaji Enterprises (Pondy) Private Limited Vs The Union of India

M/s.Taurus and Taurus (India) Enterprises Private Limited Vs The Union of India

K.Prakash Vs The District Collector

L and T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd. Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Banumathi Vs The Managing Director