Dismissed

Dhinesh Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Mar 2024WP(MD)/2843/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by farmers seeking full maize crop insurance payment for 2018-19 and quashing of the Joint Director of Agriculture's order rejecting their claim. With no representation for the petitioners on successive dates including the day fixed for dismissal, the Court dismissed the writ petition for default and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dhinesh Kumar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P(MD)No.2843 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.2843 of 2021 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2323 and 2324 of 2021

¶8

Dhinesh Kumar

¶9

Vijaya Lakshmi

¶10

Raja Mani

¶11

Rajalakshmi

¶12

Venkattaramanujam

¶13

Bathmavathi

¶14

Venkattamal

¶15

Saravanakumar

¶16

Rama

¶17

Thirupathi

¶18

Jeyavelu

¶19

Gayathri

¶20

Ulaganathan

¶21

Kuruvamal

¶22

Sangaraswari 16. Sankaranarayanan 17. Alwarsamy

¶23

... Petitioners

¶24

Vs.

¶25

The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Government, Revenue Department, Fort St. George,

¶26

Chennai – 9.

¶27

1/6

¶28

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

¶29

The General Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., 24 Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014.

¶30

W.P(MD)No.2843 of 2021

¶31

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶32

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶33

The General Manager, The Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

¶34

Virudhunagar District.

¶35

The Branch Manager, Virudhunagar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

¶36

R.R. Nagar Branch, Virudhunagar District.

¶37

The Tahsildar, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶38

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings No.Ivaluvalaga Kaditha En. 176/5072/19 dated 23.01.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners

¶39

2/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P(MD)No.2843 of 2021

¶42

representation dated 20.01.2020 and also to direct the respondents to pay the full crop insurance (Maize) 2018-2019 to the petitioners.

¶43

For Petitioners : No appearance For R1, R3, R4 & R7 : M/s.K.Christy Thebora Additional Government Pleader For R2 : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar For R5 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathy For R6 : No appearance

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in his proceedings No. 176/5072/19 dated 23.01.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation dated 20.01.2020 and also to direct the respondents to pay the full crop insurance (Maize) 2018-2019 to the petitioners.

¶46

Today, this case is listed under the caption 'for dismissal'.

¶47

3/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.2843 of 2021

¶50

It is seen from the records that since there was no representation

¶51

for the writ petitioners on 20.02.2024 and subsequently on 11.03.2024, this Court ordered to post the matter under the caption 'for dismissal' on 20.03.2024 and even today (20.03.2024), there is no representation for the writ petitioners. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for default. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

¶52

20.03.2024

¶53

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No csm

¶54

¶55

The Secretary Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶56

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶57

The Joint Director of Agriculture, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶58

4/6

¶59

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

¶60

W.P(MD)No.2843 of 2021

¶61

The Tahsildar, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District

¶62

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶63

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

W.P(MD)No.2843 of 2021

¶65

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J

¶66

csm

¶67

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2843 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2323 and 2324 of 2021

¶68

Dated : 20.03.2024

¶69

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Dhinesh Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dhinesh Kumar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meenakshisundaram.a Vs the Senor Branch Manager

Arockiyaraj.a Vs the District Revenue Officer

S.Sakkarai Vs the District Collector

Muthu Sivaprakash.T Vs the Passport Officer

Marimannan.D Vs the Secretary

Kamala Vs the District Collector