A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order by the State Women Commission was dismissed as infructuous following a submission by the petitioners' counsel that the relief sought was no longer necessary.
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 : 07.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
W.P.NO.31344 OF 2014
PRAYER:-
The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order made in Na.Ka.No.2974/WC/2013, dated 17.07.2014 from the first respondent/Women Commission and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent/Women Commission to consider and pass order on the petitioner's representation dated 28.07.2014.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Manikannan
For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Gunasekaran
For 2nd & 3rd Respondents : Mrs.P.Rajarajeswari Government Advocate
For 4th Respondent : Mr.S.Sathiachandran
O R D E R
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has become infructuous and hence, the same may be dismissed as infructuous. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the bundle.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
asi
To
W.P.NO.31344 OF 2014
SRA(CO) PBS/14/02/2022
R.Nirmala
S.Raja Rajeshwari
P.Indumathi
C.Abithakumari
The Chairman, The Tamil Nadu State Women Commission
The District Educational Officer
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
