Dismissed

N.Jothiraj, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Jan 2023WP/12774/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging proceedings regarding lease renewal. The petitions were declared infructuous because the lease period had already been extended to the petitioners prior to the judgment.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous since the lease was already extended to the petitioners. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

N.Jothiraj, Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.12774 to 12776 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.Nos. 12774 to 12776 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.11174 & 11176 of 2016

¶7

N.Jothiraj .. Petitioner in W.P.No.12774 of 2016 N.Kaliyappan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.12775 of 2016 M.Valarmathi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.12776 of 2016 Versus

¶8

The Commissioner Mohanoor Panchayat Union Mohanoor Namakkal District .. Respondent in all WPs

¶9

Common Prayer:Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.775/2016/A3 dated 29.03.2016 on the file of the respondent, quash the same and direct the respondent to renew the lease of the Shop Nos. 3, 2 and 1 to the petitioners for the further period of three years from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy (in all WPs)

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi (in all WPs)

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in

¶14

Na.Ka.No.775/2016/A3 dated 29.03.2016 on the file of the respondent,

¶15

1/3

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.Nos.12774 to 12776 of 2016

¶18

quash the same and direct the respondent to renew the lease of the Shop

¶19

Nos.3, 2 and 1 to the petitioners for the further period of three years from

¶20

01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019.

¶21

When the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶22

submitted that lease period is extended to the petitioners. Hence, the relief sought for in these writ petitions have become infructuous.

¶23

Such view of the matter, these writ petition stands dismissed as

¶24

having become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

06.01.2023

¶26

dhk Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶27

¶28

The Commissioner Mohanoor Panchayat Union Mohanoor Namakkal District

¶29

2/3

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.Nos.12774 to 12776 of 2016

¶32

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶33

dhk

¶34

W.P.Nos. 12774 to 12776 of 2016

¶35

06.01.2023

¶36

3/3

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

N.Jothiraj, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Jothiraj, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Vasudevan Vs The District Collector

G.Velu, S/o.Govindasamy Reddy, Vs The Secretary

Tmt. a.Sudha Arul, Vs The Inspector of Panchayats /

Wasila Banu Vs The Commissioner

Amutha Muniyan Vs The Chief Secretary

G.Sekar Vs The District Collector/