Madras High CourtWP/33333/2002dismissed as infructuous

M/Sj. Raasi Bricks & Jelly v. The Chief Vigilance

2016-12-16Honourable Mr Justice M. Govindaraj3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.12.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ Writ Petition No.33333 of 2002 and W.M.P.No.49398 of 2002 M/s.Raasi Bricks and Jelly rep. By its Proprietor Mrs.R.Kamala, No.62-D/1, Kamaraj Street, Kanchipuram-631 501.

... Petitioner vs.

1. The Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Shastri Bhawan, G.P.O. Complex Extension, INA, New Delhi-110 022.

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch-Chennai, 3rd Floor, Shastri Bhawan, 26, Haddows Road, Chennai-26.

3. The Director (Vigilance), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, Room No.146, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.

4. The Executive Director, Railway Design and Standard Organisation, Manak Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

5. The Union of India rep. By the Principal Chief Engineer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Madras-3.

6. The Divisional Railway Manager, Madras Division, Southern Railway, Park Town, Madras-3.

... Respondents

Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to immediately investigate into the petitioners complaint dated 06 August 2002, by investigating the officers and calling for the documents mentioned in the Schedule A and B in the writ petition and to inspect and subject to all the mandatory tests, the inferior quality 'Hand Crushed Stone Ballast' illegally collected and stacked at the Arrakkonam Yard/Depot allegedly in pursuance of the item No.5 of the 6th Respondent's Tender Notice No.MAS/07/2002 and to prosecute the erring officers of the 5th and 6th respondents department and the errant contractor.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Amalraj For Respondents 3 to 6 :

Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar

ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has become infructuous and he has also made an endorsement to that effect in the WP.

2. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar tsi To