The Madras High Court reaffirms procedural norms by allowing withdrawal of a writ petition with endorsement and directing petitioners to seek remedy via an application for perjury, serving as binding High Court authority on similar withdrawals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | W.P.No.30565 of 2025 of M. Govindasamy Vs. The Director General of Police |
| CNR | HCMA010692032025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed as Withdrawn |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Bench | Single‐Judge Bench |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Upon an express endorsement by counsel that the writ petition is withdrawn, the High Court will dismiss the petition as withdrawn. The Court noted that any alleged false statement amounting to perjury must be pursued via an appropriate application under the relevant criminal provisions, as the writ jurisdiction does not extend to coercing departmental action on account of perjury under Article 226. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court confirms that a writ petition may be formally withdrawn by endorsement and must then be dismissed without adjudicating merits.
- When allegations of false statements in court filings arise, the appropriate remedy is to file an application for perjury rather than seek relief under Article 226.
- No costs are imposed on withdrawal, reinforcing that procedural withdrawals carry no cost-penalty where endorsed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Counsel for the petitioner sought and obtained permission to withdraw the writ petition by making an endorsement on record.
- In view of the withdrawal, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, without delving into the merits.
- The Court observed that relief for alleged false statements before the Court is available only by initiating a perjury proceeding under the relevant penal provisions, not by writ of mandamus.
- Consequently, the petitioner was directed to pursue the perjury remedy in accordance with law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition filed under Article 226.
- Endorsed on record the wish to discontinue the petition.
Respondents
- No objection recorded to the withdrawal request.
Factual Background
Petitioner M. Govindasamy filed W.P.No.30565 of 2025 under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing disciplinary action against an Inspector of Police for alleged false statements made in W.P.No.23223 of 2024 dated 12.08.2024. On 18.08.2025, through his counsel, the petitioner endorsed his desire to withdraw the petition. The Court, noting the endorsement, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and pointed out that any allegation of perjury must be pursued via a criminal application.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: invoked as the writ jurisdiction basis.
- Penal provisions related to perjury: identified as the correct legal channel for addressing false statements made before the Court.