Dismissed

Varaaki v. State Industries Promotion

Madras HC28 Mar 2022WP/6958/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought a writ of mandamus directing the fifth respondent to order an investigation against specific subcontractors. The petitioner requested to withdraw the petition, which the court allowed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate PIL.

Varaaki Vs State Industries Promotion — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

W.P.No.6958 of 2022

¶6

Varaaki, S/o.Radhakrishnan

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶10

The District Collector, Order of the District Collectorate, Kancheepuram.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram.

¶12

The Assistant Director, Order of the Mines and Minerals Department, Sriperumbudur.

¶13

The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Order of the Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pillaipakkam Taluk, Sriperumbudur.

¶16

The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Sriperumbudur.

¶17

M/s.FS India Solar Ventures Private Limited, Represented by their Director Sujoy Ghosh

¶18

10.M/s.Tata Projects Limited, Represented by its directors https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

11.M/s.Mallika Infrastructures, Represented by its Proprietor

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the fifth respondent to order investigation by the respondent or any other agencies on the complaints made by the petitioner against the 9^th , 10^th and 11^th respondents subcontractors.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Janakiram For Respondents : For R1 to R8 : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶25

In view of the above submission and the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appropriate petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the concerned bench. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-IV)

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

rgm/arb

¶31

¶32

State Industries Promotion

¶33

Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (SIPCOT), 19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶34

The District Collector, Order of the District Collectorate, Kancheepuram.

¶35

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

¶36

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram.

¶37

The Assistant Director, Order of the Mines and Minerals Department, Sriperumbudur.

¶38

The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶39

The Superintendent of Police, Order of the Superintendent of Police, Sriperumbudur.

¶40

The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pillaipakkam Taluk, Sriperumbudur.

¶41

The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Sriperumbudur.

¶42

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶43

W.P.No.6958 of 2022

¶44

JP (CO) PR (11/04/2022)

¶45

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

Varaaki v. State Industries Promotion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varaaki v. State Industries Promotion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Thirunavukarasar Vs State Rep by Its

K.Athilakshmi Vs Sub Inspector of Police

V.Mullaivendhan Vs the District Public Prosecutor

Vijayakar Packiaraj Vs State Rep by

Rathinarajan Vs Superintendent of Police

S.Dhanasekharen Vs K.B.Kumar