Dismissed

K.Giriprasath v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jan 2024WP/1319/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought direction against respondents to act on a representation regarding banned agricultural products. The petitioner did not appear in court. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner did not appear in court.

K.Giriprasath Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.1319 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.01.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.No.1319 of 2020

K.Giriprasath

.. Petitioner

Versus

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶12

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (TANFED),

¶13

No.96, St. Mary's Road, Mandaveli, Chennai - 600 009.

¶14

Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Thiruninravur, Thiruvallur District.

¶15

Adhava Agro Tech, 16/41, Pooram Prakasham Road, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

W.P.No.1319 of 2020

¶20

the representation made by the petitioner, dated 21.11.2019 (requesting them to take action against the Grozyme-G products and banned the same) within a stipulated time and pass appropriate orders for appropriate compensation for the irreparable loss made to the petitioner's land and the mental agony.

¶21

For Petitioner : No Appearance

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, Government Advocate for R1

¶23

: R4 - No Appearance

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court is made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶26

None appears for the petitioner. The second respondent filed counter refuting the claim of the petitioner.

¶27

As none appears for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed

¶28

for non-prosecution. There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 19.01.2024

¶30

Index : yes/no

¶31

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

¶32

2/4

¶33

W.P.No.1319 of 2020

¶34

Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs

¶35

¶36

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶37

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (TANFED),

¶38

No.96, St. Mary's Road, Mandaveli, Chennai - 600 009.

¶39

The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Thiruninravur, Thiruvallur District.

¶40

The Adhava Agro Tech, 16/41, Pooram Prakasham Raod, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai.

¶41

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

¶42

3/4

¶43

W.P.No.1319 of 2020

¶44

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

grs

W.P.No.1319 of 2020

19.01.2024

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

¶49

4/4

K.Giriprasath v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Giriprasath v. The District Collector

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

Jamuna Rani Vs The Collector

N.Veeran Vs Arriya Vaisyar Community

K.Kannammal Vs the Commissioner

The Chairman, Vs R.K.Dastur

T. Gangatharanpillai, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tamilnadu Adhi Andhra Maha Sabha Vs The Commissioner