Dismissed¶28

High Court Durai v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC28 Mar 2025REV.APLW(MD)/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; Rev.Appln.(MD).Nos.24 and 25 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4688 and 4709 of 2022; review applications dismissed as infructuous; filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code; sought to set aside orders dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(MD).No.1254 of 2022 and W.P.(MD).No.1239 of 2022; respondents include Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department and TASMAC officials; Justice C. Saravanan; decided 28.03.2025; bare disposal order with no substantive ruling, suitable only as proof of termination, not for citation of any legal proposition.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Review Applications have become infructuous, the Court dismissed Rev.Appln.(MD).Nos.24 and 25 of 2022 as infructuous. ¶27

High Court Durai Vs the Secretary to the Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Rev.Appln.(MD).Nos.24 and 25 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

Rev. Aplln.(MD)Nos.24 and 25 of 2022

¶8

and

¶9

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4688 and 4709 of 2022

¶10

1.High Court Durai ...Petitioner in Rev.Appln.No.24 of 2022 2.S.M.Samiraj ... Petitioner in Rev.Appln.No.25 of 2022

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Secretary to the Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), CMDA Complex, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶14

3.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), Madurai.

¶15

4.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents in both Rev.Applns.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

Rev.Appln.(MD).Nos.24 and 25 of 2022

¶19

PRAYER in Rev.Appln.(MD).No.24 of 2022: Revision Petition filed under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD).No.1254 of 2022 dated 09.02.2022 and allow the Review Petition.

¶20

PRAYER in Rev.Appln.(MD).No.25 of 2022: Revision Petition filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code and Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD).No.1239 of 2022 dated 09.02.2022 and allow the Review Petition.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan (in both) For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinodh (in both) Government Advocate for R1

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

Mr.S.Vishnuvardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through Video Conferencing and submitted that these Review Applications have become infructuous.

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

Rev.Appln.(MD).Nos.24 and 25 of 2022

¶27

2.Recording the same, these Review Applications are dismissed as

¶28

infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

28.03.2025