Case Note & Summary
This writ appeal was heard by the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima. The appeal was directed against the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by a Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.4155 of 2012. The appellant, S. Baskaran, had originally filed the writ petition against the respondents, who are officials of the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO), formerly known as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The precise nature of the dispute in the writ petition is not detailed in the judgment, but it evidently pertained to some action or decision of TANGEDCO. The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the order under challenge. Dissatisfied, the appellant invoked the intra-court appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act and filed the present appeal, along with a miscellaneous petition for interim relief. When the matter came up for hearing on 03.02.2025, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Ramsundarvijayaraj, informed the Court that he had received instructions from his client to withdraw the appeal. He accordingly made an endorsement on the case file to that effect. The respondents, represented by Mr. K. Nagaranan, raised no objection to the withdrawal. The Court, after noting the endorsement and the submission, allowed the withdrawal. The Division Bench observed that the appellant was not desirous of prosecuting the appeal any further. In view of the withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and no order as to costs was passed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, C.M.P(MD)No.1425 of 2025, was closed. The effect of the dismissal as withdrawn is that the order of the Single Judge dated 11.07.2022 remains undisturbed and attains finality between the parties. Withdrawal of an appeal is a voluntary act by the appellant and does not involve any adjudication on the merits. The court merely records the withdrawal and dismisses the appeal in terms of the request. Since there was no contest, no substantive legal issues were examined or decided. The judgment does not cite any provisions other than Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, which is the source of the appellate jurisdiction. No precedents were referred to, and no legal principles were laid down. In sum, the Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal by a brief order, allowing the appellant to withdraw his challenge. The matter thus concluded without any determination of the correctness or otherwise of the Single Judge's order. The procedural step of withdrawal is commonplace in appellate practice and does not entail any costs unless specifically ordered. The Court's order reflects the principle that an appellant has the right to abandon an appeal at any stage, and the court, upon being satisfied of the genuineness of the request, will permit such withdrawal, leaving the rights of the parties as they stood prior to the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Appeal - Dismissal as Withdrawn - Letters Patent Act, Clause 15 - The appellant, through counsel, sought permission to withdraw the writ appeal challenging a single judge's order in a TANGEDCO matter. The court permitted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with no costs - Held that the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Dismissal of writ appeal as withdrawn
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed as withdrawn; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
Law Points
- Withdrawal of appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act
- dismissal as withdrawn
- no costs
