Disposed

M.Kumaresan v. the Joint Commissioner

Madras HC25 Jan 2022WP(MD)/15959/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order as malafide. The court recorded the position that the petition had become infructuous and disposed of both the writ petition and the accompanying miscellaneous petition as closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Main W.P. (MD) No.15959 of 2017 and W.M.P. (MD) No.12609 of 2017 disposed of as closed. No order as to costs.

M.Kumaresan Vs the Joint Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.15959 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.01.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P(MD)No.15959 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12609 of 2017

M.Kumaresan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

¶8

Madurai. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent dated 07.08.2017 in A.P.No.1 of 2017, quash the same as the same has been passed in colorable exercise of power with a malafied intention contrary to the provisions of Sec.110 of Act 22 of 1959 read with Order 20 and Order 41 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and consequentially direct the respondent to rehear the appeal on merits and dispose off the same in accordance with law.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Karmegakannan for Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Mr.J.Karmega Kannan, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.C.Satheesh, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the lone respondent are before this Court.

¶13

Learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner submits that the captioned writ petition has become infructuous and requests that the same may be disposed of as closed. The stated position of the writ petitioner is recorded and the request is acceded to.

¶14

Therefore, captioned main writ petition is disposed of as closed the same having become infructuous. Consequently, captioned WMP is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

Sd/-

¶16

Assistant Registrar (AE)

¶17

// True Copy //

¶18

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

vsm

¶20

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

¶21

1/2

¶22

W.P(MD)No.15959 of 2017

¶23

¶24

The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

¶25

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-2594[F] dated 27/01/2022 )

¶26

W.P(MD) No.15959 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12609 of 2017 25.01.2022

¶27

nsn (CO) GC(08.02.2022) 2P 3C

¶28

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

¶29

2/2

M.Kumaresan v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kumaresan v. the Joint Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cumbum Kottaiyaichutri Veedugal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Murugan.v Vs the Additional Superintendent of Police

Rajendra Prasad S Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Nagaraj Poosari Vs the Joint Commissioner

Nagaraj Poosari, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Senthilkumar R Vs the Regional Transport Officer