Dismissed

G.Venkataramana Reddy v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Madras HC10 Mar 2023WP/35911/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus to restrain respondents from interfering with petitioner's sugar cane movement. The court held the cause was no longer relevant, noting no further adjudication was required, granting liberty to approach competent authorities.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach competent authorities; Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.

G.Venkataramana Reddy Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative — Madras HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP No.35911 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.35911 of 2004 And

¶7

WPMP No.43218 of 2004 and WVMP No.2543 of 2004

¶8

G.Venkataramana Reddy .. Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

3.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

WP No.35911 of 2004

¶17

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.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Balaji

¶19

For Respondent-1 : Mr.K.Rajasekaran

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that

¶23

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.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No.35911 of 2004

¶27

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.

¶28

10-03-2023

¶29

Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. Neutral Citation : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. Index: Yes/No. Svn

¶30

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.35911 of 2004

¶34

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Svn

WP 35911 of 2004

10-03-2023

4/4

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

G.Venkataramana Reddy v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Venkataramana Reddy v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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

P.Sudarsanan Naidu Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative

M.Thimma Naidu Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative

R.Manohar Reddy, Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative