Dismissed¶21

G.Rajamani v. State Rep by

Madras HC3 Apr 2025WP/11689/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.11689 of 2025; Madras High Court; D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; 03.04.2025; Article 226; Writ of Mandamus; TNEB/TANGEDCO; transformer and supporting pillar relocation; representation dated 27.11.2023; Semmanchery and Sholinganallur, Chennai; dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-approach; no costs; withdrawal with endorsement in court bundle.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court again if necessity arises; no costs awarded. ¶21

G.Rajamani Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.11689 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

W.P.No.11689 of 2025

¶7

G.RAJAMANI DIRECTOR OF M/S.STEADFAST TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PVT. LTD., RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.2, ANAND FLATS, 9TH STREET, R.K.SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY ITS, THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED, 144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.

¶11

STATE REP. BY ITS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, SEMMANCHERY, CHENNAI - 600 119.

¶12

STATE REP BY ITS, ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI, SHOLINGANALLUR, CHANNAI - 600 119. ... Respondents

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.No.11689 of 2025

¶16

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the third respondent considering the representation made by the petitioner on 27.11.2023 to relocate the Transformer and Supporting pillars expeditiously.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Saranath For R1 to R3 : Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh

¶18

ORDER

¶19

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for

¶20

the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach this Court again if necessity arises since he is pursuing the matter with the respondent authorites and he has also made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle.

¶21