Disposed

The Government of Tamil Nadu, v. M.Samikkannu, S/O.Madhurai Kounder

Madras HC21 Aug 2024WA/695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed Writ Appeals Nos. 695, 697, and 698 of 2019 and connected Miscellaneous Petitions as infructuous. The matter was disposed of following the appellant's submission that the directions of the impugned writ orders had been complied with.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeals Nos. 695, 697 & 698 of 2019 and connected C.M.Ps closed as infructuous; no costs awarded.

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Vs M.Samikkannu… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:3237

¶2

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 21.08.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

and

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN

¶9

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019 and

¶10

C.M.P.Nos. 5713, 5716 & 5723 of 2019

¶11

W.A.No.695 of 2019

¶12

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶14

3.The District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division, Sathyamangalam – 63 402.

¶15

4.The Accountant General of T.Nadu Office of the Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai – 18.

¶16

.. Appellants

M.Samikannu

.. Respondent

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

¶21

1/5

¶22

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019

¶23

W.A.No.697 of 2019

¶24

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶25

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶26

3.The District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division, Sathyamangalam – 63 402.

¶27

4.The Accountant General of T.Nadu Office of the Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai – 18.

¶28

5.Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

.. Appellants

M.Govindan

.. Respondent

W.A.No.698 of 2019

¶34

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶35

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

¶36

2/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019

¶39

Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.

¶40

3.The District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam Division, Sathyamangalam – 63 402.

¶41

4.The Accountant General of T.Nadu Office of the Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai – 18. .. Appellants

¶42

¶43

M.Eswaran .. Respondent

¶44

Prayer in W.A.No.695 of 2019: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 19.09.2014 made in W.P.No.25518 of 2014.

¶45

Prayer in W.A.No.697 of 2019: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 14.08.2014 made in W.P.No.21910 of 2014.

¶46

Prayer in W.A.No.698 of 2019: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 19.09.2014 made in W.P.No.25519 of 2014.

¶47

For Appellants : Mr. C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader (in all WA's)

¶48

For Respondents : Mr.S.Mani (in all WA's)

¶49

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

¶50

3/5

¶51

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019

¶52

COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)

¶53

Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing

¶54

for the appellants submits that the Writ Appeals are not pursued seriously by the State and hence makes an endorsement to the effect that the same may be closed as infructuous. Incidentally, he submits that the directions under the impugned order of the Writ Court dated 19.09.2014, 14.08.2014 & 19.09.2014 respectively, stand complied as per G.O.(3D).No.5 dated 12.02.2016.

¶55

Recording the aforesaid, these Writ Appeals and connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed as infructuous. No costs.

¶56

[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J] 21.08.2024

¶57

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes vs

¶58

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

¶59

4/5

¶60

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019

¶61

DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J. and G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J

¶62

¶63

W.A.Nos.695, 697 & 698 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos. 5713, 5716 & 5723 of 2019

¶64

21.08.2024

¶65

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

¶66

5/5

The Government of Tamil Nadu, v. M.Samikkannu, S/O.Madhurai Kounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Tamil Nadu, v. M.Samikkannu, S/O.Madhurai Kounder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Dhevi Super Leathers, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

The Additional Director Vs M/S Rajam Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Chief General Manager Vs M.Pothi Raja

M. Sriramulu Reddiar Vs the Urban Land Tax Tribunal

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Vs the Dy Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. T. Thangavel Chettiyar Vs the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes(Ctsmr)