Dismissed

K.Palanisamy, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Apr 2022WP/16008/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition seeking a declaration that certain beneficiary lists in the "Chief Minister's Solar-powered Green House scheme" were null and void. The court terminated proceedings because the petitioner sought to consider the matter infructuous and discontinued the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

K.Palanisamy, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶5

W.P.No.16008 of 2013 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

K.Palanisamy ...Petitioner Vs

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Rep. by its Secretary,

¶10

Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,

¶11

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶13

3.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Office of The Block Development Officer,

¶14

Salem. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the List of Beneficiaries (Serial Nos.90 to 97) in respect of Perumampatti Village Panchayat, Veerapandi Panchayat Union, Salem District, drawn by the 3^rd Respondent for construction of houses under the “Chief Minister's Solar-powered Green House scheme” at Perumampatti Village, Veerapandi Panchayat Union, dated “Nil” issued by the 3^rd Respondent as null and void and consequently direct the Respondents to strictly follow the provisions of G.O. (Ms.) No.46, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 17.08.2011 and the Guidelines issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu for selection of the beneficiaries under the said Scheme.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶17

For Respondents: Mr.TNC.Kaushik (for R1 & R2) Additional Government Pleader Mr.R.S.Selvam (for R3)

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the matter has been rendered infructuous, the petitioner does not wish to pursue the same and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶21

2.Recording the same, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶23

// TRUE COPY //

¶24

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

vs/ska

1.The Secretary,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department,

¶30

Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶31

2.The District Collector,

¶32

Salem District, Salem.

¶33

3.The Block Development Officer, (Block Panchayat), Office of The Block Development Officer, Salem.

¶34

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.23019

¶35

W.P.No.16008 of 2013 and

¶36

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶37

bs[co] srg 18/04/2022

¶38

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

K.Palanisamy, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palanisamy, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Agro Foods Vs The Director General of Foreign Trade

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Jayalakshmi Vs The District Collector

G.Santhoshkumar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

K.M.Vishnu Vardhan Vs The chairman cum Managing Director

V.S.Thannasi Vs Secretary to Government