Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arulmighu Karuppannasamy Temple Trust represented by its Vice President Rajalakshmi Tamilkudimagan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 (District Revenue Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi) to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 4.7.2022 and to grant permission to renovate Arulmighu Karuppannasamy Temple located in Old S.No.57/16, New S.No.400/14, Kakkoor, Mudukulathur Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. The respondents included the District Collector, District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, and three private individuals (K.Bose, S.Dhanasekaran, R.Jeyachandran). During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect. The court, in view of the request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered by Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan on 20.01.2025.
Headnote
A) Writ Law - Withdrawal of Petition - Discretion of Court - Petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect - Court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn with no order as to costs (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should grant permission to withdraw the writ petition.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of writ petition
- No order as to costs
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 492
For Petitioner: Mrs.Porkodi Karnan for M/s.Polax legal Solutions; For RR 1 to 4: Mr.D.Gandhiraj, Special Govt.Pleader; For RR 5 to 7: Mr.K.Jeyamohan
Arulmighu Karuppannasamy Temple Trust, represented by its Vice President, Rajalakshmi Tamilkudimagan
1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District; 2.The District Revenue Officer, Paramakudi; 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi; 4.The Tahsildar, Mudukulathur Taluk, Mudukulathur; 5.K.Bose; 6.S.Dhanasekaran; 7.R.Jeyachandran
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents 2 and 3 to conduct an enquiry on the petitioner's representation dated 4.7.2022 and to grant permission to renovate Arulmighu Karuppannasamy Temple.
Filing Reason
Petitioner wanted renovation permission for the temple and had made a representation to the authorities.
Issues
Whether the court should permit withdrawal of the writ petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect.
Ratio Decidendi
A petitioner is entitled to withdraw a writ petition at any stage, and the court may permit such withdrawal with no order as to costs.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition and has also made an endorsement to that effect.
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date. On 20.01.2025, the matter came up for hearing before Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan, and the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
