Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by the petitioner, Rajendran, against multiple respondents including the State of Tamil Nadu represented through its Principal Secretary of the Rural and Panchayat Raj Department, the Union of India through the Ministry of Rural Development, the Social Audit Society of Tamil Nadu, and other officials. The nature of the litigation pertained to a service dispute under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). The petitioner had been serving as a Social Audit Block Resource Person (SA-BRP) under MGNREGS for a period of approximately nine years. His service was terminated vide proceedings bearing reference Se.Mu.No.1064/2022/S7 dated 28.04.2023 issued by the sixth respondent, the Social Audit Society of Tamil Nadu. Aggrieved by this removal, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned termination order as null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to disengage him and to regularize his service on the basis of his long tenure. The petition was listed for hearing before the Honourable Mr. Justice Battu Devanand. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a letter to the Registry dated 07.02.2025, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. No reasons for the withdrawal were recorded in the order. The court, taking note of the request, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. There was no order as to costs. The court did not go into the merits of the case, nor were any legal issues framed, argued, or decided. The judgment contains no discussion of facts, evidence, or law. The entire order is confined to the recording of the withdrawal and the consequential dismissal. Therefore, no ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, or legal principles emerge from this order. The procedural history indicates only the filing of the petition and its eventual withdrawal; no prior orders or proceedings were mentioned. No acts or sections were cited or interpreted, and no precedents were referred to. The outcome is purely procedural, with the court acceding to the petitioner’s request to withdraw without any adjudication on the substantive claims. In light of the above, the judgment favors neither side and holds no precedential value.
Issue of Consideration
W.P.(MD)No.18475 of 2023
Final Decision
Dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
