Madras High CourtWP/31616/2005dismissed for nonprosecution

V.Marimuthu v. The District Collector

2018-12-10Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 10.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.31616 of 2005 WPMP.NO.34659 OF 2005 V.Marimuthu

...Petitioner

Vs 1.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.

2.The Assistant Director of Namakkal.

3.The District Collector, Nilgris District, Nilgiris.

4.The Assistant Director of Nilgiris.

5.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

6.The Assistant Director of Coimbatore.

7.The District Collector, Erode District, Erode.

8.The Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Erode.

9.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

10.The Assistant Director of Sivagangai.

11.The District Collector, Madurai.

12.The Assistant Director of Madurai.

13.The District Collector, Dindigul.

14.The Assistant Director of Dindigul.

15.The District Collector, Thirunelveli.

16.The Assistant Director of Thirunelveli.

...Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the 1 to 16 respondents from insisting the petitioner and his customers either to obtain transport permits or to get mentioning of the final place of destination in the bills issued by the public works Department to transport the processed /filtered sand from the petitioners stockyard to the place of the petitioners purchasers destination.

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate

O R D E R

The writ petition was listed for hearing on 06.12.2018. None appeared for the writ petitioner. Thus, the case was directed to be listed on 07.12.2018 under the caption "For Dismissal".

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 07.12.2018, again there is no representation on behalf of

the writ petitioner and in order to give one more opportunity to the writ petitioner, it was directed to be listed under the same caption on 10.12.2018.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, once again there is no representation on behalf of the writ petitioner. Thus, it is to be construed that the writ petitioner is not interested in pursuing the matter.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-/- Assistant Registrar(CS ) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sk To 1.The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal.