Allowed

P.Krishnasamy v. the Union Territory of Puducherry

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WMP/40780/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a miscellaneous petition to dispense with the production of the original impugned order where the petitioner filed a photocopy, noting that the order's authenticity was not contested. The court ordered that an affidavit adequately articulating support be filed in future.

What did the court decide?

Dispense with the production of the original impugned order dated 21.10.2024.

P.Krishnasamy Vs the Union Territory of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.M.P.No.40780 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-12-2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

WMP. 40780 of 2024

¶7

¶8

WP. 37722 OF 2024

¶9

P.KRISHNASAMY S/O.V.K.PALANISAMY, NO.66 KAMATCHI AMMAN KOIL STREET, PUDUCHERRY 605001.

¶10

PETITIONER(S)

¶11

¶12

THE UNION TERRITORY OF PUDUCHERRY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT (HRI AND WAKF), DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, ART AND CULTURE (CO-OPERATION), CHIEF SECRETARIAT, GOUBERT AVENUE, PUDUCHERRY 605001. AND 3 OTHERS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

For Petitioner(s): M.VELMURUGAN

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR. J.,]

¶16

This order will now dispose of the captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous

¶17

Petition' [hereinafter 'WMP' for the sake of brevity].

¶18

Page Nos.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

W.M.P.No.40780 of 2024

¶20

Captioned WMP has been filed with a prayer to dispense with production of 'original impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 21.10.2024 bearing reference No.2110/CHRI/PA/2024' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

¶21

Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the original impugned order is not readily available with the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition but a photo copy of the impugned order is filed along with the typed set of papers and that has necessitated the captioned WMP.

¶23

5 . Taking into account the fact that the authenticity of the impugned order is not subjected to contestation or disputation, as a one off case, we are considering the dispense with prayer making it clear that

¶24

in the days to come, adequate articulation in the support affidavit is imperative.

¶25

Page Nos.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.M.P.No.40780 of 2024

¶27

6. In the light of the narrative thus far, dispense with prayer is acceded to. Captioned WMP is ordered as prayed for.

¶28

[M.S., J] [K.R.S., J] 10.12.2024 (2/2)

¶29

¶30

Page Nos.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.M.P.No.40780 of 2024

¶32

M.SUNDAR, J., and K.RAJASEKAR, J.,

¶33

¶34

WMP. 40780 of 2024 IN WP. 37722 OF 2024

¶35

10.12.2024 (2/2)

¶36

Page Nos.4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Krishnasamy v. the Union Territory of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Krishnasamy v. the Union Territory of Puducherry

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

N.Chitra Vs the District Collector

S.Ilaiyaraja Vs the District Collector

S.Muniyamuthu Vs the District Collector

M.Gokulakannan Vs The Chief Engineer

P.Vijaykumar Vs the District Collector

P.Alamelu Vs the District Collector