Dismissed¶53

S.Suresh, Advocate v. The State Government of

Madras HC29 Jan 2026WP/21073/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quo warranto; Additional Public Prosecutor; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules 2017 Rule 8; G.O.Ms.No.369 Public (Law Officers) Department dated 29.04.2017; Article 226 Constitution of India; dismissal for non-prosecution; petitioner absent / no representation; W.P.No.14582 of 2017 first Bench dismissal 07.12.2023; T. Mohan; A. Ramar; R. Ramachandran; Anandakumar Govt. Advocate; neutral citation 2026:MHC:369.

What did the court decide?

There being no representation by or on behalf of the petitioner when called, the writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs. ¶53

S.Suresh, Advocate Vs The State Government of — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the 5th respondent in each writ petition (T. Mohan, A. Ramar and R. Ramachandran respectively) holds the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under valid authority, so as to warrant a writ of quo warranto directing him to show cause and ousting him from the office as per Rule 8 of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules 2017. +1 more

¶36

Ratio / Principle

There being no representation by or on behalf of the petitioner when called, the writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs.

¶53

Key takeaways

The court observed, speculatively ('perhaps'), that the petitioner's non-appearance may be because the challenge to G.O.Ms.No.369 Public (Law Officers) Department dated 29.04.2017 had already been considered and dismissed on merits by the first Bench in W.P.No.14582 of 2017 vide order dated 07.12.2023.obiter¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (common order dated 29-01-2026; order of the Court made by Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth J., sitting with Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.; neutral citation 2026:MHC:369) — WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017 with WMP Nos. 21953 to 21955 of 2017, filed by S. Suresh, Advocate, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writs of quo warranto against the respective 5th respondents — T. Mohan, A. Ramar and R. Ramachandran, Additional Public Prosecutors, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court — directing each to show cause under what authority he holds the post of Additional Public Prosecutor and to oust him as per Rule 8 of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules 2017. The petitioner was called absent on 27.01.2026 (matter listed under caption 'for dismissal') and again gave no representation when called; the court noted that the underlying G.O.Ms.No.369 Public (Law Officers) Department dated 29.04.2017 had already been considered and dismissed on merits by the first Bench in W.P.No.14582 of 2017 vide order dated 07.12.2023. All writ petitions and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs; the merits of the quo warranto challenge were not adjudicated.

¶1

2026:MHC:369

¶2

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 29-01-2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶9

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶10

and WMP Nos. 21953 to 21955 OF 2017

¶11

S.Suresh, Advocate

¶12

S/o.S.Subburaj, No.12/1, North street, Karumbalai, Madurai

¶13

..Petitioner

¶14

¶15

The State Government of

¶16

Tamil Nadu rep by The Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-09

¶17

The Secretary to the Government, Public Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09

¶18

The Secretary to the Government, Home Department State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09

¶19

__________ Page1 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶22

The Secretary to the Government, Law Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George Chennai-09 5. T.Mohan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Law Office, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23 ..Respondent(s) WP No. 21074 of 2017 S.Suresh, Advocate S/o.S.Subburaj, No.12/1, North street, Karumbalai, Madurai ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Government of Tamil Nadu rep by The Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-09 2. The Secretary to the Government, Public Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09

¶23

..Respondent(s)

¶24

__________ Page2 of 8

¶25

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

¶26

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶27

The Secretary to the Government, Home Department State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09 4. The Secretary to the Government, Law Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George Chennai-09 5. A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor, Law Office, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23 ..Respondent(s) WP No. 21075 of 2017 S.Suresh, Advocate S/o.S.Subburaj, No.12/1, North street, Karumbalai, Madurai ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The State Government of Tamil Nadu rep by The Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai-09 2. The Secretary to the

¶28

__________ Page3 of 8

¶29

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

¶30

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶31

Government, Public Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09

¶32

The Secretary to the Government, Home Department State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-09

¶33

The Secretary to the Government, Law Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George Chennai-09

¶34

R.Ramachandran, Additional Public Prosecutor, Law Office, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23

¶35

..Respondent(s)

¶36

Prayer in W.P.No.21073 of 2017: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto directing the 5th respondent herein to show cause under what Authority the 5th respondent holds the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and oust him from the office of Additional Public Prosecutor for Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as per Rule 8 of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules 2017

¶37

Page4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶40

Prayer in W.P.No.21074 of 2017: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto directing the 5th respondent herein to show cause under what Authority the 5th respondent holds the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and oust him from the office of Additional Public Prosecutor for Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as per Rule 8 of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules 2017

¶41

Prayer in W.P.No.21075 of 2017: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto directing the 5th respondent herein to show cause under what Authority the 5th respondent holds the post of Additional Public Prosecutor for Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and oust him from the office of Additional Public Prosecutor for Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as per Rule 8 of the Law Officers of High Court of Madras and its Bench at Madurai (Appointment) Rules 2017

¶42

In all W.Ps.

¶43

For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): Mr. Anandakumar Govt. Advocate – R1 to R4

¶44

__________ Page5 of 8

¶45

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

¶46

WP Nos. 21073 to 21075 of 2017

¶47

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶48

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶49

The matter was listed for hearing on 27.01.2026 when the petitioner was

¶50

called absent and hence it was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’ and is so listed today. When called, there is no representation by or on behalf of the petitioner.

¶51

This is perhaps for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.369 Public (Law Officers) Department, dated 29.04.2017 has already been considered in W.P.No.14582 of 2017 and dismissed by the first Bench vide order dated 07.12.2023. This is on the merits of the matter.

¶52