P. Anbalagan Vs The State Rep by its

P. Anbalagan vs The State Rep by its

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Jan 31, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1783324

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1783324
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar
Decided On: Jan 31, 2025
Case Number: WP/26289/2015

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P. Anbalagan

Respondent

The State Rep by its

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated : 31.01.2025coramthe honourable mr.justice mummineni sudheer kumar p.anbalagan ... petitioner vs.1. the state rep by its the managing director,2. the general manager, chennai - 600 002. ... respondentsprayer: writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent-1 herein in order no.32311/sa bi (o na) 14/ma po ka /2012 dated 20.05.2015 and quash the same as illegal. for petitioner : no appearance for respondents : mr.c.gauthamaraj, standing counselorderthis writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension suspending the petitioner from service on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case.2. when this matter earlier came up for consideration before this courtyesterday, it is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was convicted during the pendancy of the writ petition and he had also attained the age of superannuation. hence, nothing survives in the present writ petition. taking into consideration the same and also considering the fact that there was no representation for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal”.3. today, inspite of the matter being listed under the caption “fordismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. in the circumstances, this court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.4. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. no costs. connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 31.01.2025 skr index : yes / nospeaking order / non-speaking orderneutral citation : yes / no to1. the managing director,2. the general manager,mummineni sudheer kumar, j.skr 31.01.2025

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR P.Anbalagan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State Rep by its The Managing Director,
2. The General Manager, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Respondent-1 herein in Order No.32311/Sa BI (O Na) 14/Ma Po Ka /2012 Dated 20.05.2015 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.C.Gauthamaraj, Standing Counsel

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension suspending the petitioner from service on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case.

2. When this matter earlier came up for consideration before this court

yesterday, it is brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was convicted during the pendancy of the writ petition and he had also attained the age of superannuation. Hence, nothing survives in the present writ petition. Taking into consideration the same and also considering the fact that there was no representation for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “For Dismissal”.

3. Today, inspite of the matter being listed under the caption “For

Dismissal”, there is no representation for the petitioner. In the circumstances, this court is left with no other option except to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. 31.01.2025 skr Index : Yes / No

Speaking order / Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation : Yes / No To

1. The Managing Director,

2. The General Manager,

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

skr 31.01.2025

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2025 Same Parties P. Anbalagan vs The State Rep by its Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar