K.Subramanian v. The District Collector
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought writ directing respondents to remove an abandoned Aircel tower. Court closed the petition finding the tower had already been removed by the 2nd respondent during pendency, rendering no further adjudication necessary.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed; no further adjudication necessary; no costs awarded.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.P.No.10358 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.10358 of 2023
K.Subramanian
...Petitioner
Vs.
- The The District Collector, Office of The District Collector, Thiruvarur.
- The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District.
- The Chairman,
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.Subramanian
- respondent
The The District Collector, Office of The District Collector, Thiruvarur
- respondent
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District
- respondent
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
- respondent
Aircel Limited
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court