Dismissed¶25

G.Jayabalan, v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC4 Mar 2025WP/18314/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.18314 of 2014 (connected W.M.P.No.18899 of 2017), decided 04.03.2025 by M.S.Ramesh and N.Senthilkumar, JJ. G.Jayabalan v. The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam and others. Article 226 mandamus sought against advocate S.Vinayak alleging misuse of B.L. Degree in the name of another advocate Vinayagam; representation dated 23.07.2011 to Tamil Nadu Bar Council. Dismissed for default (petitioner absent on hearing date and on 30.07.2021); no costs; miscellaneous petition closed. No cases cited; no quantum.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed for default, there being no representation for the petitioner on the date of the order nor at the last hearing on 30.07.2021. ¶24

G.Jayabalan, Vs The Superintendent of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.18314 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.18314 of 2014 and W.M.P.No.18899 of 2017

G.Jayabalan

...Petitioner

1.The Superintendent of Police, O/o.The District Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam.

¶11

2.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By The District Collector, District Collector’s Office, Nagapattinam.

¶12

3.S.Vinayak

¶13

4.The President, Tamil Nadu Bar Council, Chennai – 600 104.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action against the third respondent and consequently consider the petitioner representation dated 23.07.2011 to the fourth respondent to enquire about the Nagapattinam Bar Association by name S.Vinayak Advocate who

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.18314 of 2014

¶19

knows that this allegation stated is against the rules and misusing the B.L. Degree in the name of other Advocate named Vinayagam and file a report to this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 & R2 : Mrs.V.Yamunadevi Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.R.Murugabharathi For R4 : Mr.S.J.Masood

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶23

T here is no representation for the petitioner today, so also in the last

¶24

hearing on 30.07.2021. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed for default.

¶25

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.