Back
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
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.
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.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous if the respondent party dies, eliminating the basis for the action sought.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the circumstances that necessitated the petition no longer exist, such as the retirement of the respondent.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
A petitioner has the right to withdraw a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, leading to its dismissal without further examination.
A writ petition under Article 226 can be withdrawn if the circumstances surrounding the case change, making the petition moot.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear in court, demonstrating a lack of interest in the proceedings.
Legal proceedings must address current and relevant issues; if an issue becomes moot, the court will dismiss the case.
A writ petition abates upon the death of the petitioner if legal heirs are not substituted, reflecting the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought has already been granted, negating the need for judicial intervention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
