Dismissed¶21

R.Ravi v. The Superintendent of police

Madras HC10 Sept 2025WP/6541/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

R.Ravi v. Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District & Director General of Police — W.P.No.6541 of 2021, Madras High Court, T. Vinod Kumar J., decided 10.09.2025 — Article 226 writ of certiorarified mandamus against F.Order No.A3/PR.08/2014 dated 30.09.2014 and its confirmation in RC No.056282/AP.IV(1)/2017; sought reinstatement and consequential service and monetary benefits — dismissed as withdrawn on counsel's letter of 01.09.2025 to Registrar (Judicial); no costs. No issues decided, no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Permission to the petitioner's counsel to withdraw the Writ Petition; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with no orders as to costs; no substantive relief on the impugned orders or reinstatement. ¶21

R.Ravi Vs The Superintendent of police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.6541 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.6541 of 2021

R.Ravi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur District.

¶11

2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the first respondent in F.Order No.A3/PR.08/2014 dated 30.09.2014 and confirmed by the second respondent in his RC No.056282/AP.IV(1)/2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequence service and monetary benefits.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muthappan

¶14

For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamunadevi, SGP

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.6541 of 2021

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) on 01.09.2025, claiming that the petitioner had instructed him to withdraw the Writ Petition by enclosing the letter as addressed to him.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid letter addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner enclosing therewith the letter addressed to him by the petitioner himself, the learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition.

¶21