Dismissed¶23

L.Gopalan v. the Managing Director

Madras HC8 Aug 2025WP/25911/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.25911 of 2012, Madras High Court, Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J., decided 08.08.2025. Petitioner L.Gopalan v. TNSTC (Coimbatore Limited) Managing Director and General Manager TNSTC Erode Region. Article 226 writ of Certiorarified Mandamus against impugned order dated 20.02.2012 in Pa.No.1/D4/875/Law/TNSTC/EMa/2011; repayment of already recovered amount. Relief granted by reviewing authority during pendency; endorsement by counsel Ms.S.Girija; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no costs; connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 closed. No precedent discussed; no quantum stated.

What did the court decide?

Since the very same relief sought in the writ petition had been granted by the reviewing authority during its pendency, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. ¶23

L.Gopalan Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.25911 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.25911 of 2012 and

¶7

M.P.No. 1 of 2012

L.Gopalan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore Limited)

¶12

37, Mettupalayam Road Coimbatore – 641 002

¶13

2.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Erode Region (Head Office) Chennimalai Road, Erode – 638 001. .... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records connected with the impugned order dated 20.02.2012 made in Pa.No.1/D4/875/Law/TNSTC/EMa/2011 passed by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the respondent to repay the already recovered amount from the petitioner to him.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.25911 of 2012

¶18

For Petitioner : Ms.S.Girija

¶19

For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Ms.S.Girija, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶22

the relief sought in this writ petition has become infructuous, as the very same relief has been granted by the reviewing authority during the pendency of the present writ petition and she also made an endorsement to that effect in the bundle.

¶23