The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the process for granting a fisheries right as infructuous due to counsel's endorsement.
No costs. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous based on the counsel's endorsement.
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.(MD)No.1888 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.1888 of 2018
Pandiyarajan
... Petitioner
versus
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to conduct the tender for fisheries right at Virathanur Kanmoi based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.12.2017.
1/4
W.P.(MD)No.1888 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi
For Respondents : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate
ORDER
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous. He has also made an
endorsement to that effect.
04.12.2023
ssb NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.
2/4
W.P.(MD)No.1888 of 2018
To
3/4
W.P.(MD)No.1888 of 2018
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ssb
W.P.(MD)No.1888 of 2018
04.12.2023
4/4
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pandiyarajan
Director of Fisheries
District Collector
Assistant Director of Fisheries
B. Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
