Dismissed¶26

Rudhramoorthy v. Govt. of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Jul 2026WP/25386/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 25386 of 2007; High Court of Judicature at Madras; T. Vinod Kumar, J.; decided 13-07-2026; Article 226 writ of certiorarified mandamus against Government of Tamilnadu Animal Husbandry And Dairying Fisheries Department letters (Mu.Ku.Na.Ka.89476/R1/2000; 26159/Poul/2005-06 dated 25.10.2006); no appearance for petitioners; dismissal as withdrawal (withdrawal letters 26.09.2014 and 28.06.2026); abatement on death of 2nd petitioner on 14.01.2009, legal heirs did not pursue; no costs; Government Advocate C.P.Goutham.

What did the court decide?

None on merits. Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioners No.1 and 3; writ petition closed as abated in respect of the 2nd petitioner (who died on 14.01.2009); no costs. ¶26

Rudhramoorthy Vs Govt. of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 25386 of 2007

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WP No. 25386 of 2007

1.Rudhramoorthy

2.P.Pachaiyappan

3.S.Melamalai

..Petitioners

1.Government of Tamilnadu Rep.By its Secretary, Animal Husbandry And Dairying Fisheries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai

¶13

2.The Commissioner And Director Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Services, Central Office Building, Block No.2, D.M.S. Compound, Chennai-6

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, praying to call for the records issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No.Mu.Ku.Na.Ka.89476/R1/2000 and letter No. 26159/Poul/2005-06 dated 25.10.2006 from the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner: No appearance For Respondents: Mr.C.P.Goutham Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 25386 of 2007

¶21

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

¶22

Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits

¶23

that the petitioners No. 1 and 3 have expressed their desire to withdraw themselves from the writ petition by submitting a letter dated 26.09.2014 and 28.06.2026.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid desire expressed by the petitioners No.1 and 3, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioners No.1 and 3.

¶25

In so far as, 2nd petitioner is concerned, despite the writ petition being listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd petitioner. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the second petitioner had deceased on 14.01.2009. Since, the 2nd petitioner had deceased pending the writ petition and the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner did not come forward to pursue the writ petition, the writ petition stands abated to the extent of the 2nd petitioner.

¶26

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioners No.1 and 3 and the writ petition is closed as abated in respect of 2^nd petitioner. No costs.

¶27

13-07-2026

¶28

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶29

MSV

¶30

__________ Page2 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 25386 of 2007