Tamilnadu State Transport ... vs M.Ravi
2021 Latest Caselaw 16970 Mad

                                                                                W.A.No.987 of 2021

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 18.08.2021

                                                       CORAM

                          The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                                         and
                             The Honourable Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
                                                  W.A.No.987 of 2021
                                               and C.M.P.No.6130 of 2021

                    1.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
                      Represented by its Managing Director,
                      Salem Division, Salem 07.

                    2.The General Manager,
                      Office of the General Manager,
                      Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
                      Dharmapuri Region,
                      Salem Salai, Bharathipuram,
                      Dharmapuri.

                    3.The Branch Manager,
                      Pennagaram Branch,
                      Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd.,
                      Pennagaram,
                      Dharmapuri District.                                ... Appellants
                                                       vs
                    M.Ravi                                                ...Respondent
                    Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against
                    the final order dated 16.09.2008, made in W.P. No.17743 of 2008.
                                     For Appellants        :   Mr.D.Raghu



http://www.judis.nic.in
                    Page No.1 of 2
                                                                                    W.A.No.987 of 2021

                                                           PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
                                                                                and
                                                               KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

                                                                                                   rst

                                                    JUDGMENT

(delivered by Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J., ) When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant submitted that pursuant to the order passed in

the writ petition, contempt petition was filed, after which, the writ petitioner

was selected and appointed in the post of conductor and he also joined duty.

Therefore, the writ appeal becomes infructuous.

2.Recording the same, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

                                                                  [P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
                                                                        18.08.2021
                    Index      : Yes/No
                    Internet   : Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

rst

W.A.No.987 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.6130 of 2021

http://www.judis.nic.in