Writ petition sought a mandamus to consider the petitioner's complaint about alleged irregularities during 2006-2007 and consequential action. The court found no purpose would be served given the considerable lapse of time, counsel could not contact the petitioner, and closed the writ petition without costs.
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.9555 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD) No.9555 of 2008
T.Lawrence ... Petitioner
-vs-
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 23.01.2008 and further direct him to submit report before the respondent no.1 and 2 and consequently direct the respondent no.1 and 2 to take appropriate action pursuant to such report in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.9555 of 2008
For 3rd Respondent
: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl)
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.]
The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.01.2008.
2.A perusal of the representation shows that it is the complaint arising out of irregularities that has been taken place in September 2006 to November 2007. We are sure that no purpose would be achieved by issuing the Mandamus as sought for due to considerable lapse of time.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that she is unable to contact the petitioner.
4.Hence, the Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.]
08.08.2024
NCC : No Index : No Internet : Yes Mrn/Sml
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.9555 of 2008
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 4_
W.P.(MD) No.9555 of 2008
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn/Sml
W.P.(MD) No.9555 of 2008
08.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 4_
1 issue framed by the court
Should a mandamus issue directing the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Inspector to consider the petitioner's 2008 representation alleging irregularities of 2006-2007?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Lawrence
The Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department
The District Collector, Tirunelveli District
The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tirunelveli District
R.Subramanian
L.Victoria Gowri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
