Disposed¶21

M.Manikandan v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Mar 2025WP(MD)/16711/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition WP(MD) No.16711 of 2019 (with WMP(MD) No.13321 of 2019), Madras High Court – Madurai Bench, Justice M. Jothiraman, 20.03.2025, closed as infructuous. Subject: Article 227 certiorarified mandamus against proceedings Na.Ka.No.T3/879/2018 dated 07.03.2019 of the Special Officer/Block Development Officer (Village Panchayats), Kayathar Panchayat Union, Thoothukudi District; appointment sought in place of third respondent S. Anandi. Parties: M. Manikandan (petitioner), District Collector Thoothukudi (R1), S. Anandi (R3). Keywords: infructuous, closed, no costs, village panchayat appointment, Thoothukudi, Kayathar.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition closed as infructuous with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petition also closed. ¶21

M.Manikandan Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD) No.16711 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

WP(MD) No.16711 of 2019 and WMP(MD).No.13321 of 2019

M.Manikandan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District.

¶11

2.The Special Officer/Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayats) Kayathar Panchayat Union Kayathar Thoothukudi District.

¶12

3.S.Anandi .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for writ of certioriarified mandamus to call for the records impugend order passed by the second respondent vide its proceedings in Na.Ka.No.T3/879/2018 dated 07.03.2019 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to appoint the petitioner in the place of third respondent.

¶14

_________Page 1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

WP(MD) No.16711 of 2019

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr.Pon Senthil Kumaran
For R1	: Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman Government Advocate
For R2	: Mr.J.Padmavathi Devi
For R3	: Mr.P.Mahendran

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard both side.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶21

prayer sought for within this writ petition became infructuous and nothing survives for further adjudication. In view of the above, the writ petition is closed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶22

20.03.2025

¶23

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes nst

¶24

_________Page 2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP(MD) No.16711 of 2019

¶27

¶28