The High Court of Madras dismissed two writ petitions filed by Arokiasamy for nonprosecution as the petitioner's counsel failed to appear and the court was of the view that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting matters dating back to 2002.
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.
Writ Petition Nos.2805 of 2002 a n d 14844 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 13/12/2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.2805 of 2002 and 14844 of 2003 a n d W.P.M.P.Nos.18582 of 2003 and 10038 of 2005 a n d
W.V.M.P.No.1054 of 2003
Arokiasamy
... Petitioner in both the petitions
Vs
Respondents 1 and 2 in both the petitions Third respondent in W.P.No.14844 of 2003
Page No:1/4
Writ Petition Nos.2805 of 2002 a n d 14844 of 2002
PRAYER in W.P.No.2805 of 2002 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to handover the entire possession and service of the Corporation Christian Cementry, St. Marry's Road, Mandaveli, Chennai, to the petitioner as per he grant of Grave Digger Licence by the first respondent Commissioner of Chennai Corporation in his order in HDC.No.Vs/S5/6745/2000 dated 22/3/2001.
PRAYER in W.P.No.14844 of 2003: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relevant tot he order in H.D.C.No.VS/SS/9187/2001 dated 21/4/2003 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable and against the Rule of Law.
For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Murugan No appearance For respondents ... Mr.G.T.Subramanian for R.R.1 and 2 Mr.V.Paul Paneer Selvam for R.3.
Page No:2/4
Writ Petition Nos.2805 of 2002 a n d 14844 of 2002
C O M M O N O R D E R
Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Since the matters pertain to the year 2002, this Court is of the view that neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner is interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13/12/2022
Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order
mvs.
To
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Page No:3/4
Writ Petition Nos.2805 of 2002 a n d 14844 of 2002
mvs.
Writ Petition Nos. 2805 of 2002 and 14844 of 2003
13/12/2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No:4/4
Arokiasamy
Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Health Officer, Corporation of Chennai
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
