Dismissed¶21

D.Balakrichenane v. The Managing Director

Madras HC9 Sept 2025WP/7400/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.7400 of 2019; W.M.P.Nos.8075 of 2019 & 800 of 2020; D. Balakichenane v. Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd.; Article 226 Constitution of India; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; MACP scheme financial upgradation; impugned order dated 13.02.2019 Proceeding No.546/PRTC/Admn./2015/111; restoration of upgradation dated 29.04.2016 Proceeding No.546/PRTC/Admin./2015/560; withdrawal endorsement by petitioner's counsel Mr. P.K. Sabapathi; respondents' counsel Mr. R. Sreedhar; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs; single bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar; decided 09.09.2025; no merits adjudicated.

What the court decided

D.Balakrichenane Vs The Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P. No.7400 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.7400 of 2019 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.8075 of 2019 & 800 of 2020

D.Balakichenane

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, Puducherry Road Transport, Corporation Ltd., Puducherry.

¶12

2.The Assistant Engineer, Puducherry Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Puducherry. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 13.02.2019 in the proceeding No.546/PRTC/Admn./2015/111, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to restore the order of financial up gradation given to the petitioner under MACP scheme dated 29.04.2016 in the proceeding of the first respondent bearing No.546/PRTC/Admin./2015/560.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

W.P. No.7400 of 2019

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Sabapathi For Respondents : Mr.R.Sreedhar

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

When the matter taken up for hearing today, Mr.P.K.Sabapathi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instructed him to withdraw the Writ Petition. He has also made an endorsement to that effect. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection for the petitioner withdrawing the Writ Petition.

¶20

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the endorsement so made, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition.

¶21

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition(s) is/are also closed, if any. There shall be no orders as to costs.

10.09.2025

Page 2 of 4

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

¶26

W.P. No.7400 of 2019

¶27

¶28