Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. T.Sivagnanasambandan
For Respondent(s): Mr. Niranjan Rajagopalan Standing Counsel for R1 & R2

Writ petition withdrawn as infructuous, dismissed without costs.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to stall the release of a movie until completion of elections. The court noted the petition's prayer directing consideration of a representation. The court found the matter infructuous as per counsel's submission. Issues framed involved directing stalling of movie release amid elections. The ratio was the petition becoming infructuous due to changed circumstances, warranting withdrawal. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. petition withdrawn as infructuous and dismissed. (Para 1 , 2)

Learned counsel for petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that it has become infructuous.

2. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application is also dismissed.

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 :