AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Both these writ petitions have been brought forth seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the G.O.M.S.No.174 dated 21.4.1998, the consequent proposals of the fourth respondent and the G.O.M.S.No.174 dated 21.4.1998 as amended by G.O.M.S.No.500 dated 16.9.1998 are unconstitutional, illegal and void.
At the time when the matter was taken up for consideration, it was represented by the learned Special Government Pleader that subsequent to the two Government Orders referred to above, the State Government has passed G.O.M.S.No.740 dated 29.12.1998, G.O.M.S.No.200 dated 18.5.1999 and G.O.M.S.No.199 during 2000, and all these three G.Os. have been brought forth, and hence, the petitioner could work out his remedies under those G.Os.
This Court is of the considered opinion that at this juncture, there is no meaningful relief that could be granted in declaring G.O.M.S.No.174 dated 21.4.1998 and G.O.M.S.No.500 dated 16.9.1998 as unconstitutional and void, in the face of the above stated three G.Os. subsequently passed by the State Government. Under the circumstances, there is no impediment for the petitioner to work out his remedies under all or any one of the three G.Os. referred to above. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move this Court by way of writ application, if he could not get the remedies under all or any one of those three G.Os.
In the result, with that liberty both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.