Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition as Withdrawn in Matter Seeking Direction to Constitute Single Window Approval Committee. Petitioner Sought Withdrawal and the Court Permitted Dismissal Under Article 226 of Constitution.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 160
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a sole proprietorship firm, filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court seeking directions to the respondents, including the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation and the Commissioner of Police (Traffic), to constitute a Single Window Approval Committee and to process applications under Rule 320 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023. The petition was listed for hearing on 25 February 2025. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn without costs. No substantive issues were adjudicated, and no findings on merits were recorded.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Writ Petition - Permission to withdraw - Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, Rule 320 - Petitioner sought withdrawal of writ petition filed for directions to constitute Single Window Approval Committee; counsel made endorsement to that effect - Held that in view of the endorsement, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with no costs (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to constitute a Single Window Approval Committee under Rule 320 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner's counsel, with no costs.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of writ petition is permitted and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (02) 191

WP No. 19198 of 2024

2025-02-25

Justice S.M. Subramaniam, Justice K. Rajasekar

2025:MHC:779

Dr.G.Krishnamurthy for petitioner; Mrs.K.Aswini Devi for respondents 1 and 3; Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran for respondent 2

M/s.Diamond Graphics, Represented by Sole Proprietor R.Rajasekar

The Commissioner, Corporation Of Greater Chennai; The Commissioner of Police, Traffic, Chennai; The Chairman, Single Window Approval Committee, Corporation Of Chennai

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking directions to constitute a Single Window Approval Committee and to process applications under Rule 320 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought directions to respondents to constitute and declare a Single Window Approval Committee to process applications under Rule 320.

Previous Decisions

None

Judgment Excerpts

the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed and came up for hearing on 25-02-2025. In view of the endorsement made by the petitioner's counsel seeking withdrawal, the court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Acts & Sections

  • Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023: Rule 320
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Land Acquisition Challenges by Landowners in KIADB Proceedings — Preliminary Notification Under Section 28(1) of KIAD Act Not Quashed Despite Alleged Non-Compliance with Section 28(2) and Section 28(4). The court h...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order Granting Construction Sanction — Upholds Municipal Regulations. The court ruled that the respondent company did not have a vested right to seek sanction for additional floors due to subsequent amendments to th...