Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D.M.C. Joseph, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madras seeking directions to the District Collector and the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation to take action against two advertising firms for erecting unauthorized advertisement hoardings on his house. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the cause of action no longer existed and made an endorsement to that effect. The Court, noting the endorsement, directed the authorities to verify and remove any existing hoardings if not already done, and disposed of the writ petition as infructuous without costs. The judgment does not delve into legal reasoning or cite any specific statutes or precedents, as the matter was disposed of on the basis of the petitioner's own statement that the grievance had ceased.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Infructuous Petition – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Where the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the cause of action did not survive and made an endorsement to that effect, the High Court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, while directing the respondent authorities to verify and remove any existing unauthorized advertisement hoardings on the petitioner’s residential property, if not already done. Held, the petition was rendered infructuous by the cessation of the grievance (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition should be disposed as infructuous after the petitioner's counsel endorsed that the cause of action did not exist
Final Decision
The court, noting petitioner's endorsement that the cause did not exist, directed respondents to verify and remove any existing hoardings if not already done, and disposed the writ petition as infructuous with no costs
Law Points
- When the cause of action no longer survives
- a writ petition may be disposed as infructuous with directions to authorities to ensure compliance
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 146
S. M. Subramaniam, K. Rajasekar
M. Mohanethi, E. Veda Bagath Singh, K. Aswini Devi
1. The District Collector, Chengalpattu; 2. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation; 3. M/s.7 Star Advertising BLR Outdoor Brand Solutions; 4. M/s.7 Star Advertising BLR Outdoor Brand Solutions (Rep. by P.Jayapaul)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking directions to authorities to remove unauthorized advertisement hoardings from petitioner's residential property
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take action against respondents 3 and 4 for removal of unauthorized advertisement hoardings erected on petitioner's house
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that unauthorized hoardings were erected on his property and desired their removal
Issues
Whether the writ petition should be disposed as infructuous after the petitioner's counsel endorsed that the cause of action did not exist
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the cause did not exist and the writ petition became infructuous, and made an endorsement to that effect
Ratio Decidendi
When a petitioner informs the court that the grievance no longer subsists, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous; the court may, however, direct authorities to ensure compliance with the original prayer if any residual obligation remains
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause did not exist and therefore, the writ petition became infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an endorsement to that effect.
However, the respondents are directed to verify and remove any existing hoardings if not already done. Thus, the Writ Petition stands disposed as infructuous. No costs.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed WP No. 1892 of 2025 seeking directions for removal of unauthorized hoardings. At the hearing, counsel for petitioner endorsed that the cause no longer survived, leading to the petition being disposed as infructuous with directions.
