Dismissed¶21

The Management v. Thiru.S.Rajamani

Madras HC14 Nov 2025WP/21133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 21133 of 2013; W.M.P.No.1 of 2013; State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. (SETC) Management; S. Rajamani ex-conductor; First Additional Labour Court Chennai; I.A.No.270 of 2013 in C.P.No.356 of 2007; writ of certiorari; Article 226 Constitution of India; dismissal for non-prosecution; no appearance; no costs; decided 14-11-2025 by K. Surender, J.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, as there was no representation for the petitioner even when the matter was listed under the caption “For dismissal”. ¶20

The Management Vs Thiru.S.Rajamani — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 21133 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14-11-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

WP No. 21133 of 2013 &

¶7

W.M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶8

The Management State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai 600 002.

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

S.Rajamani Ex-conductor of SETC, Kattupuli Village, Thuvalaia Vattam Post, Kanyakumari District

¶12

2.The Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Building, Chennai 600 104

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 14.6.2013 made in I.A.No.270 of 2013 in C.P.No.356 of 2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): R1 & R2 – No appearance

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 21133 of 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This matter came up for consideration before this Court on 23.09.2025 and 29.10.2025. As there were no representation for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “For dismissal”.

¶20

Today, inspite of the matter being listed under the caption “for dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non prosecution.

¶21