Dismissed

P.Sudarsanan Naidu v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Madras HC10 Mar 2023WP/35902/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to prevent interference with the movement of the petitioner's sugar cane across state lines was dismissed as infructuous because the cause for the petition no longer existed, with liberty granted to approach competent authorities if grievances persist.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach competent authorities if grievances exist; no order as to costs.

P.Sudarsanan Naidu Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.35902 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10-03-2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

WP No.35902 of 2004 And

¶7

WPMP No.43211 of 2004 and WVMP No.2540 of 2004

P.Sudarsanam Naidu

.. Petitioner

vs.

1.The Tiruttani Cooperative Sugar Mills, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District, Represented by its Administrator Tiruvalangadu.

¶12

2.The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore-9.

¶13

3.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No.35902 of 2004

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the movement of the petitioner's sugar cane in any manner including to areas outside the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji

¶20

For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Rajasekaran

¶21

For Respondents-2 and 3 : Mr.T.Venkateshkumar, Special Government Pleader.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that

¶24

the cause aroused for filing the present writ petition did not exist as of now. Thus no further adjudication is required in respect of the grounds raised in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made an endorsement to the said effect. If at all any grievance exist, liberty is granted to the writ petitioner to approach the Competent Authorities in the manner known to law.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No.35902 of 2004

¶28

With the abovesaid liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed of as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

¶29

10-03-2023

¶30

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Neutral Citation : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Index: Yes/No. Svn To 1.The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore-9. 2.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

WP No.35902 of 2004

¶34

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP 35902 of 2004

10-03-2023

4/4

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

P.Sudarsanan Naidu v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sudarsanan Naidu v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

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

M.Akber Hussain Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs v.Sudhahar Saravanan

The State of Tamil Nadu, Vs K.Jayachandran

M.Thimma Naidu Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative

R.Manohar Reddy, Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative

G.Venkataramana Reddy Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative