Dismissed¶22

R.Krishnamurthy v. The Collector

Madras HC16 Jul 2026WP/5391/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawn writ petition — Madras High Court, single judge (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.), decided 16.07.2026. Petitioner R.Krishnamurthy sought quashing of DRDA Krishnagiri order dt.17.12.2021 and refund of Rs.8,64,000 advance with 36% p.a. interest (Article 226, Certiorarified Mandamus). Dismissed as withdrawn after State Counsel produced prior order dt.16.09.2022 in W.P.No.3976 of 2022 rejecting identical refund claim of same petitioner for shop No.5; counsel endorsed withdrawal on file; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. No ratio, no holdings — cite only to show parallel petition met the same fate as W.P.No.3976 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition (counsel made a file endorsement); dismissed as withdrawn; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs. No relief granted on merits.

R.Krishnamurthy Vs The Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.No.5391 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.No.5391 of 2022 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.5482, 5483, 5484 & 5485 of 2026

¶8

R.Krishnamurthy S/o.Late Ramasamy

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

The Collector District Collector Office Krishnagiri District.

¶12

The Project Director District Rural Development Agency Krishnagiri District. … Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent’s order dated 17.12.2021 vide its Na.Ka.No.3292/2017/R9 which was received by the petitioner on 23.02.2022 and quash the same and direct the 2^nd respondent to refund the entire advance amount of Rs.8,64,000/(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 36% p.a. of interest which was paid by the petitioner within the time frame.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.Annamma .K For Respondents : Mr.M.Sivavarthanan Government Counsel

¶15

¶16

Page Nos.1/4

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.5391 of 2022

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned State Counsel, placed on record the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3976 of 2022, whereby a similar relief sought for by the very same petitioner herein in respect of shop No.5 seeking a refund of the entire advance amount with interest was rejected.

¶21

When confronted with the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. She has also made an endorsement in the case file to that effect.

¶22

In view of the above submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

16.07.2026

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

Page Nos.2/4

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.5391 of 2022

¶29