Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, by recording the submission made by the respondent, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77.V.ChandrasekaranManager, Sir Theagaraya Colege, (Shift-2) 1047 / 345, T.H.Old Washermenpet, Chennai- 600 021. Respondent(s)PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 24.04.2019 and 02.05.2019…
Judgment
WP No. 24741 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07-04-2026CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 24741 of 20221. Dr.A.BaluS/o.Anthony Moorthy, No.21,8th Street, Bakthavatchalam Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai- 600 061.
Tamil Nadu Association of Intellectual and faulty(TAIF) Rep its President, Dr.A.Balu, S/o.Anthony Moorthy, No.4, 8th Street, Bakthavatchalam Nagar, Nanganallur, chennai- 600 061. Petitioner(s)Vs1. The DirectorDirectorate of Vigilance and anti- Corruption 293, MKN Salai, Alandur, Chennai- 600 016.2.The Principal Secretary to GovernmentHigher Education Department Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.
The DirectorDirectorate of Collegiate Educations, Chennai region, Government of Tamil Nadu, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.
The SecretarySir Theagaraya College committee, No.345/1047, T.H.Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai- 600 021. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24741 of 20225.Dr.G.Ravichandrababu89 G N Chetty Street, Arani, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District- 601 101.
S.Dilli BaskarS/o.S.G. Sakthivel, 40, Ebrahim St, Chennai- 600 001.
Operative part
V.ChandrasekaranManager, Sir Theagaraya Colege, (Shift-2) 1047 / 345, T.H.Old Washermenpet, Chennai- 600 021. Respondent(s)PRAYERWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 24.04.2019 and 02.05.2019 to enquire the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents, within the stipulated time. For Petitioner(s):Mr.P.Paul Britto KumarFor Respondent(s):Mrs.S.Anitha, SGP for R1 to 3Mr.B.Ravi, for R4Mr.C.Vigneswaran for R5R6 & 7 – No AppearanceORDERThis writ petition has been filed to direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 24.04.2019 and 02.05.2019 to enquire the 5th, 6th and 7th respondents.2. When this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner’s representation was already considered and appropriate order was passed as early as on 07.05.2019. Hence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24741 of 2022the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of this petition.3. In view of the above, it is clear that nothing survives in this petition. Therefore, by recording the submission made by the respondent, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No cost.07-04-2026nsaIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTo1.The DirectorDirectorate of Vigilance and anti- Corruption 293, MKN Salai, Alandur, Chennai- 600 016.2.The Principal Secretary to GovernmentHigher Education Department Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.3.The DirectorDirectorate of Collegiate Educations, Chennai region, Government of Tamil Nadu, College Road, Chennai- 600 006.4.The SecretarySir Theagaraya College committee, No.345/1047, T.H.Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai- 600 021. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24741 of 2022KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.nsaWP No. 24741 of 2022 07-04-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, by recording the submission made by the respondent, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous
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.