Dismissed¶33

A.Joseph Sundar Raj v. The State of TamilNadu

Madras HC28 Jan 2025WP/25405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; challenge to Registrar General, Madras High Court order P.Dis.26/2021, R.O.C.No.6498/2013/F2 dated 18.03.2021; certificate of registration as recognised clerk of an advocate; prayer amendment W.M.P.No.26517 of 2022; intended challenge to order dated 22.03.2021; typographical errors in original petition; withdrawal with liberty to file fresh writ petition; interim applications closed; K.R.Shriram CJ; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J; decided 28.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition; all interim applications closed. ¶33

A.Joseph Sundar Raj Vs The State of TamilNadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.25405 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 28.01.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶8

W.P.No.25405 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.24385, 26517 and 26519 of 2022

A.Joseph Sundar Raj

.. Petitioner

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home (Court-V) Department,

¶14

Fort St. George,

¶15

Chennai-600 009.

¶16

2.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104.

¶17

3.The Assistant Registrar (Rules), High Court, Madras, Chennai-600 104. .. Respondents

¶18

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.25405 of 2022

¶22

second respondent relating to his impugned order in P.Dis.26/2021, R.O.C.No.6498/2013/F2 dated 18.03.2021 quash the same and direct the second respondent to issue the certificate of registration to the petitioner as a recognised clerk of an advocate.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarajan

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.M.Habeeb Rahman Government Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr.S.Thangavel for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶27

Counsel for petitioner says petitioner has filed W.M.P.No.26517 of

¶28

2022 to amend the prayer clause, because what is impugned is an order dated 18.03.2021, whereas, according to counsel, what is proposed to be challenged is an order dated 22.03.2021.

¶29

When we found that the original petition itself requires to be amended because of many typographical errors, counsel sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.25405 of 2022

¶33