Dismissed¶26

The Management, v. S.Srinivasagam

Madras HC17 Jun 2026WP/23118/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-prosecution dismissal of writ petition; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; approval of dismissal of transport corporation workman; Approval Petition No.79 of 2019 before Special Joint Commissioner of Labour; TNSTC Kumbakonam Ltd., Pudukottai Region; petitioner non-appearance on 03.06.2026 and 17.06.2026; dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; Madras High Court; K. Surender, J.; 17-06-2026; merits not decided.

What did the court decide?

In the absence of any representation for the petitioner and with no material indicating a bonafide reason for the non-appearance, the Court held the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the proceedings and the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶25

The Management, Vs S.Srinivasagam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.23118 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17-06-2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER

¶6

W.P.No.23118 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.24372 of 2021

¶7

The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Pudukottai Region, 51/1, Pillai Thanner Panthal, Thirumayam Road, Pudukottai-622 001.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

S.Srinivasagam S/o.Selvaraj, Residing at Sevvaipettai, Pilaviduthi (Post), Karambakudi (Via), Pudukottai District

¶11

The Special Joint Commissioner of Labour, DMS Campus, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the second respondent in Approval Petition No.79 of 2019 and quash the same, consequently direct the second respondent to approve the order of the petitioner dated 28.02.2019 dismissing the first respondent from service.

¶14

For Petitioner:	No Appearance
For Respondents:	M/s.R. Sivakumar For R1
	R2–No Appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Earlier, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 03.06.2026, no

¶17

one appeared on behalf of the respondent Management. Therefore, the case was

¶18

Page1 of 2

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.23118 of 2021

¶21

K.SURENDER J.

¶22

sts

¶23

listed for hearing today.

¶24

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no

¶25

representation for the petitioner. Despite the matter being called, none appeared to prosecute the case. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the proceedings. In the absence of any representation and there being no material to indicate any bonafide reason for such non-appearance, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶26