Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

K Palanisamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others

Madras High Court|18 January, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.01.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.No.25710 of 2012 K.Palanisamy .. Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -4.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Western Region, Coimbatore.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur.
5. Mr.Manimozhi, Inspector of Police, Perumalnallur Police Station, Perumalnallur.
6. Ponathal 7.Ramathal
8. Palanathal
9. Govindathal .. Respondents (Respondents 7 to 9 are impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 19.10.2012, made in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in WP.No.25710 of 2012) Prayer: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and to initiate appropriate legal action against the officers responsible for acting in excess of jurisdiction, law and powers more particularly against the 5th respondent and to direct payment of damages and compensation as may be quantified by this Court apart from other actions as permissible under the Service Rules forthwith.
For Petitioner : No Appearance For RR1 to 4 : Mr.S.Diwakar, Spl.G.P. For R5 : Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja For RR6 to RR9 : No Appearance
O R D E R
Today, when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. On perusal of the docket order, it clearly shows that despite several adjournments, the petitioner has not appeared before this Court for proper adjudication. Hence, the Writ Petition is toady listed under the caption for “dismissal”. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
18.01.2017 pvs To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai -4.
3. The Inspector General of Police, Western Region, Coimbatore.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur.
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
pvs W.P.No.25710 of 2012 18.01.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

K Palanisamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
18 January, 2017
Judges
  • D Krishnakumar