Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
M. Ahamed Shahjahan – Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – Respondent
W.P. No. 2111 of 2019, W.M.P. No. 2367 of 2019
Decided On : 18-06-2024
Important Points
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous if the respondent party dies, eliminating the basis for the action sought.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
Writ Petition - Misconduct - The court addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus for action against the 3rd respondent for alleged misconduct. However, the court found that the 3rd respondent had died, rendering the petition infructuous and leading to its disposal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking action against the 3rd respondent for misconduct, including the misuse of the name of the 2nd respondent association.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the 3rd respondent had died, which resulted in the cause of action becoming non-existent.
Issues: Whether the writ petition could proceed in light of the death of the 3rd respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the death of the 3rd respondent rendered the petition infructuous, as there was no longer a party to address the allegations against.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pujha S.
For the Respondents: C.K. Chandrasekkar, M.R. Thangavel.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent for the misconduct of the 3rd respondent on the basis of the complaints and misusing the name of the 2nd respondent association including action for interim suspension of practice or any other appropriate remedy or relief as this Honorable Court directs.
1. Mr. C.K. Chandrasekkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent would submit that the 3rd respondent died and cause became vanished. Thus, this Writ Petition stands disposed of as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
