The Madurai Bench dismissed W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014 as infructuous after the respondent's counsel informed the Court that the specific appointment challenged in the petition had been subsumed by the replacement of the Headmaster involved.
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.20100 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014
1.N.Srinivasan
2.R.Suseela Rangarajan 3.R.Raghavan 4.Dr.S.Umesh : Petitioner
Vs.
Chennai – 600 004.
Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.
3.Dr.V.Ramesh : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings No.6155/Aa3/2014 dated 15.07.2014 passed by the second respondent, quash the same and
W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014
direct the second respondent to decide as to whether the meeting was properly convened on 12.07.2009 and decide as to whether the deletion and addition of members in the consequential submission of Form-VII are correct or not.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
When the matter was taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents on instructions that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the challenge made to the appointment of a particular Headmaster in this Writ Petition has now become infructuous, since the particular Headmaster has been replaced by another Headmaster thereafter. Written instructions received by learned Government Advocate has also been placed on record and as per Clause 11 of the same, it is clear that the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has now become infructuous.
2. Recording the said written instructions received by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the official respondents
W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014
and in particular as per Clause 11 of the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
18.10.2024
Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR
W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014
To
W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
MR
W.P.(MD)No.20100 of 2014
18.10.2024
N.Srinivasan
R.Suseela Rangarajan
R.Raghavan
Dr.S.Umesh
The Inspector General of Registration
The District Registrar
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
