01Facts
The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to seek certiorari quashing the seniority list issued by the Chennai Port Trust in reference No. E1/8284/2001/E, dated 10 August 2012
p. 5At the hearing, counsel for the petitioners and respondents represented that the writ petition had become infructuous
p. 602Issues
i.Whether the writ petition had become infructuous in light of the parties’ submissions.
p. 603Law Applied
The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a writ of certiorari.
p. 5The Court did not discuss or apply any substantive legal rule or precedent; it disposed of the matter on the parties’ representation that the petition was infructuous.
p. 604Reasoning
The Court did not examine the legality of the seniority list or determine the underlying service-law dispute.
p. 6Given the parties’ joint representation that the petition was infructuous, it dismissed the petition on that basis.
p. 605Holding
The Court accepted the parties’ representation and dismissed W.P. No. 11697 of 2013 as infructuous, without costs.
p. 6The connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed.
p. 6Original Court PDF
G.RAVICHANDRAN,vsTHE CHENNAI PORT TRUST,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
