Dismissed¶21

S.Ravi, v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Oct 2025WP/16545/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; M. Dhandapani, J.; 15.10.2025; W.P. Nos.16545, 16546, 16547 of 2018; W.M.P. Nos.19729, 19730, 19731 of 2018; dismissal for non-prosecution; no appearance for petitioners; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; patta; representations dated 26.02.2018; District Collector Thiruvallur; Assistant Engineer TANGEDCO/TNEB Poonamallee; V. Manoharan; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 09.10.2025, 13.10.2025 and again on 15.10.2025, showing that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the cases, the writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. ¶21

S.Ravi, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. Nos.16545, 16546 and 16547 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P. Nos.16545, 16546 and 16547 of 2018 and W.M.P. Nos.19729, 19730 and 19731 of 2018

¶7

S. Ravi . .. Petitioner in W.P. No.16545 of 2018

¶8

N. Ramachandran . .. Petitioner in W.P. No.16546 of 2018 N. Raji . .. Petitioner in W.P. No.16547 of 2018

¶9

vs.

¶10

The District Collector, O/o. Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶11

The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO/TNEB, Kumananchavadi Range, Seneerkuppam Village, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. 3. V. Manoharan

¶12

… Respondents in all W.P.s

¶13

1/4

¶14

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

¶15

W.P. Nos.16545, 16546 and 16547 of 2018

¶16

Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose petitioners' representations dated 26.02.2018 and issue patta in favour of the petitioners on the basis of petitioners' representations dated 26.02.2018.

¶17

In all W.P.s

¶18

For petitioner : No appearance For respondents : Mr.T.M. Rajangam Government Advocate for R1 Mr.L. Jaivenkatesh for R2

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

When these matters came up for hearing on 09.10.2025 and 13.10.2025, there was no representation on the side of the petitioners. Hence, these matters were adjourned to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal' on 15.10.2025 i.e., today.

¶21

Even today, there is no representation on the side of the petitioners. This shows that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting these cases. Therefore, these writ petitions are dismissed for non prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

15.10.2025

¶23

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No vsi2

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P. Nos.16545, 16546 and 16547 of 2018

¶27

¶28