R MAYARATHINAM Vs. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the writ petition was taken up for hearing, on 16.7.2009, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that he had given a change of vakalat. Hence, this Court had directed the Registry to verify whether any fresh vakalat had been filed on behalf of the petitioner and if no such vakalat had been filed, the name of the petitioner is to be printed in the cause list.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY this matter was listed, today, by printing the name of the petitioner in the cause list, since no fresh vakalat had been filed. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.