The single judge dismissed writ petitions filed to fix an early hearing date as the petitioner failed to instruct counsel who then sought adjournment.
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.
W.M.P.Nos.8699 of 2017 & 7887 of 2020 in W.P.No.41649 of 2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
These petitions have been filed seeking to fix an early date for hearing of the writ petition.
2.When the matter came up for hearing on 17.08.2023, the petitioner
changed his counsel and a new counsel came on record. Again the new counsel seeks adjournment. The petitioner had filed these petitions seeking to fix an early date, without instructing the counsel. The petitioner is trying to put the blame on the Court for not taking up the matter. Unless the counsel advances arguments, the matter cannot be heard and orders passed. It is seen that though the matter had been listed earlier, there is also no record to show that the counsel for the petitioner had commenced arguments.
3.In view of the same, these petitions are dismissed.
07.09.2023
smv
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
smv
W.M.P.Nos.8699 of 2017 & 7887 of 2020 in W.P.No.41649 of 2016
07.09.2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
