Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G ARUL
Outcome
Dismissed
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this case and hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Today, this matter is listed under the caption "for dismissal". Still there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this case and hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Connected W.M.Ps…
Judgment
W.P.No.32568 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-01-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGANWP NO. 32568 of 2013andM.P.No.2 of 2013 and W.M.P.No.1610 of 2018S.K.T. Gandhi High SchoolRep. By Its Secretary Rayararam, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District. Petitioner(s) VsThe Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Secrertary, Education Departrment, Fort St. George, Chennai and 3 Others Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s): No appearanceFor Respondent(s): Mr.A.M.Ayyadurai, Government AdvocateSpl. Gp For R1 To 4 Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.34116/D1/E4/2013 dated 07.11.2013 and consequent proceedings issued by the fourth respondent in Na.Ka.No.6464/A2/2013 dated 13.11.2013, quash the same. Page No.1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32568 of 2013ORDERThis writ petition is filed challenging the impugned the order dated 07.11.2013 issued by the second respondent and the consequential proceedings dated 13.11.2013 of the fourth respondent.
When this matter was listed for hearing on 23.01.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed for dismissal.
Operative part
Today, this matter is listed under the caption "for dismissal". Still there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this case and hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. Connected W.M.Ps are closed. Costs made easy.27-01-2025vcaPage No.2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32568 of 2013To1. The Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Secrertary, Education Departrment, Fort St. George, Chennai2. The Joint Director Of SchoolEducation (dpi), (secondary) College Road Chennai.3. The Chief Educational Officer, PUDUKOTTAI4. The District Education OfficerAranthangi. Page No.3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32568 of 2013G.ARUL MURUGAN,JvcaWP NO. 32568 of 2013andM.P.No.2 of 2013 and W.M.P.No.1610 of 2018 Page No.4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32568 of 201327.01.2025Page No.5 of 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this case and hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.