← Library
Madras High CourtWP/23862/2017dismissed as infructuous

K.Sunder, v. The Assistant Engineer O&M

2021-12-23Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.12.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.NO.23862 OF 2017 AND W.M.P.NO.25093 OF 2017 K.Sunder ... Petitioner .Vs.

The Assistant Engineer O&M, TANGEDCO, Shenoy Nagar, Ganapathy Colony, O-Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102.

... Respondent PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and quash the notice of demand bearing Ref.No.T.No./O&M Shenoy Nagar/K.21/116/17, dated 07.07.2017 issued by the respondent.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Umesh Rao For Respondent :

Mr.L.Jai Venkatesh Standing Counsel

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the notice of demand bearing Ref.No.T.No./O&M Shenoy Nagar/K.21/116/17 dated 07.07.2017 issued by the respondent.

2. When the matter was taken up on last hearing i.e., on 12.11.2021, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has sent a letter stating that he is going to withdraw the present writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

received any instructions from his client and he seeks time to get appropriate instructions. Therefore, the matter was adjourned and listed today. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has sent two letters. However, his client has not replied to the same. Therefore, he has nothing to say in this matter with regard to whether the petitioner has given any letter to the respondent informing that he is going to withdraw the writ petition or not.

3. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the respondent admitted the fact that the petitioner has paid the arrears of electricity and the fact was also reflected in the letter submitted by the respondent which is said to have been sent by the petitioner to the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not received any instruction from the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.

5. While recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sp/jd To The Assistant Engineer O&M, TANGEDCO, Shenoy Nagar, Ganapathy Colony, O-Block, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102.

W.P.NO.23862 OF 2017 AND W.M.P.NO.25093 OF 2017 PMK(CO) PBS/14/02/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/