Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
S. SAMUEL PARAYAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
WP No.28110 of 2012

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Karthik, for Mr.K.Rajasekaran
For the Respondents:Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader, Assisted by Mr.K.karthik Jagannath, Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.P.R.Ramesh Babu, SSC, for respondents 4 and 5

The court concluded that the petition became infructuous due to subsequent events, thus no consideration was necessary.

Headnote:In this case, the court analyzed the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of seats under Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of Appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Schedule Castes) Act, 2009. The petitioner sought a declaration that this Act and its corresponding rules were null and void due to being ultra vires the Constitution of India. The court found that subsequent events indicated nothing survived for consideration regarding this petition. Therefore, the matter was disposed of as having become infructuous.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Table of Content
1. the petition became infructuous due to subsequent events. (Para 1 , 2)

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent events, nothing survives for consideration in this petition and the petition may be disposed of.

2. Placing on record the said statement, this writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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 :

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASMANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JS. SAMUEL PARAYAR – AppellantVersusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU – RespondentWP No.28110 of 2012

The court concluded that the petition became infructuous due to subsequent events, thus no consideration was necessary.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, G.ARUL MURUGAN, J
S. SAMUEL PARAYAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
WP No.28110 of 2012