VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2023 › High Court of Madras

Sakthivel v. The General Manager

CLOSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
29 November 2023
Bench
R.Vijayakumarauthor
Case no.
WP(MD) 25651/2023

Judgment

ORDER The present writ petition has been filed challenging the work allocation order passed by the third respondent herein.

¶2The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a fresh work allocation order has been issued to him on 25.11.2023. In view of the above said facts, no further adjudication is called for in the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.

29.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes BTR To

1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) Madurai Limited, Dindigul Region, Dindigul District.

2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Dindigul I-Branch, Dindigul District.

3.The Assistant Manager (LDS), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Legal Department, Dindigul Region, Dindigul District.

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

BTR

29.11.2023

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR and W.M.P(MD)No.21827 of 2023 Sakthivel ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) Madurai Limited, Dindigul Region, Dindigul District. 2.The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Dindigul I-Branch, Dindigul District. 3.The Assistant Manager (LDS), Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Legal Department, Dindigul Region, Dindigul District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the third respondent in his proceedings in Ref: DGL/LD/SUPDT/09/2023, dated 25.09.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to allocate any seat works by taking into account of the 60% Disability of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.S.Raja Standing Counsel

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.