Dismissed¶27

M.K.Thiyagarajan v. the Chairman and Managing

Madras HC12 Mar 2025WP(MD)/19816/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; writ petition; Madurai Bench Madras High Court; K.Thiyagarajan v Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited; Writ of Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; implement Industrial Tribunal Award No.15/2012 dated 16.02.2016; promotion Senior Manager and above cadre; no representation petitioner; caption 'for dismissal'; W.M.P.(MD) No.15414 of 2016 also dismissed; no order as to costs; Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar; decision date 12.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

As the matter was listed under the caption 'for dismissal' yet no representation appeared for the petitioner in either the pre-lunch or post-lunch session, the Court concluded it was left with no option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution. ¶26

M.K.Thiyagarajan Vs the Chairman and Managing — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.19816 of 2016

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.19816 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD) No.15414 of 2016

K.Thiyagarajan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, 67, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶11

2.The General Manager (HR), Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited, Kagithapuram-639 136, Karur District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st Respondent to implement the Award/Order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu at Chennai in Industrial Dispute Award No.15/2012 dated 16.02.2016 and to promote the petitioner as a Senior Manager and above cadre.

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.19816 of 2016

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This matter earlier came up for consideration on 05.03.2025. As

¶19

there was no representation for the petitioner, this Court passed the following docket order:

¶20

“When this matter earlier came up for consideration on 26.02.2025, as there was no representation, the same was directed to be listed 'for dismissal'. However, immediately thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner requested not to list the matter under the caption 'for dismissal'. In view of the same, the matter was directed to be listed today. Today, in spite of the matte being called twice, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶21

Hence, list the matter on 12.03.2025 'for dismissal'.

¶22

Accordingly, the matter is listed today (12.03.2025) before this Court under the caption 'for dismissal'. In spite of the matter being listed

¶23

_________Page 2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.19816 of 2016

¶26

under the caption 'for dismissal', there is no representation for the petitioner either during pre-lunch session or in the post-lunch session. In such circumstances, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

¶27