Writ petition regarding revision of a P.P.O. was dismissed for default due to the petitioner's absence and lack of representation on the hearing date.
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: 12.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No.28890 of 2013
Sakunthala Govindan
...Petitioner
-Vs-
No.37, P.H. Road, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent herein relating to the P.P.O. No.TN/AMB/Pension/04 dated 15.04.2004 of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd respondent to issue a revised and correct P.P.O. as prayed for in the accompanying affidavit.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents : Ms.Sunitha Kumari, Standing Counsel
ORDER
Since there was no representation for the petitioner on 18.02.2022 and 25.03.2022, the matter was listed under the caption "for dismissal". Thereafter, on 05.04.2022. the learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared and at his request, the
matter was adjourned. Even today, when the matter was called, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for default. No costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
hvk To
W.P.No.28890 of 2013
AJS(CO)
SP(25/04/2022)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sakunthala Govindan
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
