Dismissed¶30

M.Manikandan v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC23 Jan 2026WP/1012/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.1012 of 2026; decided 23.01.2026; Judge M. Dhandapani; petitioner M.Manikandan; writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India; Writ of Mandamus; promotion denied; postponement of increment for three years; punishment under P.R.No.78/2012; consequential service and monetary benefits; respondents: State of Tamil Nadu Home Department, Director General of Police Tamil Nadu, Deputy Inspector General of Police Vellore Range, Superintendent of Police Vellore District; counsel R.Munuswamy (petitioner); S.Bala Murugan Government Advocate (respondents); petition withdrawn with endorsement; dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to work out remedy; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law; no order as to costs.

M.Manikandan Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.1012 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.1012 of 2026

¶7

M.Manikandan ... Petitioner

¶8

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶9

Rep.by its Secretary,

¶10

Home Department,

¶11

Fort St.George,

¶12

Chennai-9.

¶13

2.The Director General of Police,

¶14

Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶15

Rajaji Salai,

¶16

Chennai-600 004.

¶17

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range,

¶18

Vellore.

¶19

4.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Vellore District,

¶20

Vellore. ....Respondents

¶21

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the service of the petitioner and grant promotion to him as per his

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.1012 of 2026 service condition and service rules by ignoring the award of punishment, postponement of increment for three years which was undergone by him under P.R.No.78/2012 with all consequential service and monetary benefits.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.S.Bala Murugan Government Advocate

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this writ petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶29

Recording the submission and endorsement made by the learned

¶30

counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

23.01.2026

¶32

NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb

¶33

_________ Page 2 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.1012 of 2026

¶36

¶37