Dismissed

M.Anbalagan, S/O.Mariappan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP(MD)/9454/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a penalty order, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the concerned Tribunal. The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and closed connected petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty granted to approach the concerned Tribunal; period of pendency excluded for limitation.

M.Anbalagan, S/O.Mariappan, Vs the District Revenue… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9454 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9454 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P(MD)Nos.7190 and 14500 of 2017

M.Anbalagan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer cum Additional District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

2.The Food Safety Officer, Vickramasingapuram (Town), Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent herein in Na.Ka.No.Na2/11761/2015 dated --.04.2017 signed on 07.04.2017 and quash the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs.75,000/- as against the petitioner.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶15

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

¶16

1/5

¶17

W.P(MD)No.9454 of 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In view of the constitution of the Tribunal, the learned counsel for

¶20

the petitioner on instructions seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition, with liberty to approach the concerned Tribunal.

¶21

In view of the statement made, the Writ Petition is dismissed as

¶22

withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. It is made clear that when the petitioner approaches the Tribunal, the period during which this Writ Petition was pending shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

03.12.2024

¶24

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Nsr

¶25

Note: Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the petitioner after retaining a copy of the same and after getting necessary acknowledgment from the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

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

¶27

2/5

¶28

W.P(MD)No.9454 of 2017

¶29

To:

¶30

1.The District Revenue Officer cum Additional District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

2.The Food Safety Officer, Vickramasingapuram (Town), Ambasamuthiram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶32

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

¶33

3/5

¶34

W.P(MD)No.9454 of 2017

¶35

K.KUMARESH BABU, J.

¶36

Nsr

¶37

W.P(MD)No.9454 of 2017

¶38

03.12.2024

¶39

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

¶40

4/5

M.Anbalagan, S/O.Mariappan, v. the District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Anbalagan, S/O.Mariappan, v. the District Revenue Officer

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

Subramanian Vs The Managing Director

L Gopalakrishnan Vs The Income Tax Officer

K. Ponraman President Vs the Joint Registrar of

P. Seran, Vs the Branch Manager

Ammaiyakkal Vs the State Represented by

Palaniyammal Vs the District Collector