Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
ARUMUGAVADIVU.R – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY E – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lack of interest in prosecution of a writ petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's observation on repeated adjournments. (Para 2) |
| 3. final decision to dismiss the writ petition. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
This matter is listed today under the caption “for dismissal” today.
2. As seen from the earlier proceedings, this matter has been listed before me on three occasions and it is the fourth time this matter is listed before me. As seen from the earlier proceedings, repeated adjournments have been sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter. This writ petition is of the year 2022. No further adjournment can be granted. It can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this writ petition.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk To:
1.The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The District Educational Officer, Seranmahadevi Educational District, Tirunelveli District.
4.The
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
