Sri Bala Vasavi Service Station, v. The District Collector,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.06.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.Nos.5847 of 2020 & 22055 of 2021 and WMP.Nos.6854 of 2020 & 23271 of 2021 WP.No.5847 of 2020 Sri Bala Vasavi Service Station Represented by its Proprietor No.86, Ooty Main Road, Coonoor, The Nilgiris 643 102

...Petitioner

Vs.

4.Southern Railway, Rep. By Section Engineer, ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of 1/6

India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned demand notice in Na.Ka.Aa.No.3191/2005 dated 17.02.2020 from the files of the second respondent herein, quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.Aparna Nandakumar For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar WP.No.22055 of 2021 Sri Bala Vasavi Service Station Represented by its Proprietor No.86, Ooty Main Road, Coonoor, The Nilgiris 643 102

...Petitioner

Vs.

4.Southern Railway, Rep. By Section Engineer, ... Respondents 2/6

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned demand notice in Na.Ka.Aa.No.2/3191/2005 dated 27.09.2021 from the files of the second respondent herein, quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s.Aparna Nandakumar For Respondents For R1 to 3 : Mr.E.Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar COMMON ORDER Both the writ petitions have been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned demand notices in Na.Ka.Aa.No.3191/2005 dated 17.02.2020 and Na.Ka.Aa.No.2/3191/ 2005 dated 27.09.2021 from the files of the second respondent and to quash the same.

2.

Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3.

It is seen that the petitioner in both the writ petitions is a proprietory concern and represented by its proprietor. Now, the proprietor 3/6

died and the legal heirs of the proprietor do not want to pursue the writ petitions. As such, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petitions and on permission of this Court, she has also made endorsements to that effect. 4.

In view of the endorsements made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, both the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

13.06.2024 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok 4/6

To 4.Section Engineer, Southern Railway, 5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 13.06.2024 6/6