Allowed

M. Ganesan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Mar 2013WP(MD)/2140/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held that the District Collector is the sole competent authority to grant closure orders for TASMAC shops. An order passed by the regional manager without reference to the Collector or hearing the licensee was unauthorized and was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing closure was set aside and the second respondent is directed to open the TASMAC retail Shop No.10405, subject to conditions.

M. Ganesan, Vs the District Collector — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.03.2013

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.2140 of 2013

M.Ganesan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶10

2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC)

¶11

BHEL Nagar, Tiruchirappalli.

¶12

3.The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC) Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to open the TASMAC retail Shop at 82, Big Sourashtra Street, Woraiyur, Trichy.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Kanagarajan

¶15

For Respondents:Mr.T.R.Janarthanan,

¶16

Addl Govt Pleader for R1. Mr.M.Muniyasamy, Standing Counsel for R2 and R3

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The first respondent by proceedings dated 29.03.2012, granted permission to open the TASMAC Shop in Door No.82, Big Sourastra Street, Woraiyur, Trichy and the petitioner was granted permission to run the Bar attached to the said TASMAC shop which has been given No.10405. Thereafter, by the impugned order, the second respondent ordered closure of the TASMAC Shop No.10405 from 31.05.2012 and the same is challenged in this writ petition.

¶19

2.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent as a competent authority has the power to order closure of any TASMAC shop and when the first respondent has given permission and licence to open the TASMAC shop No.10405, in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Door No.82, Big Sourastra Street, Woraiyur, Trichy, the second respondent cannot order closure of the shop on the ground that Shop No.10202 is functioning in the adjacent door and the sales in Shop

¶20

¶21

No.10202 was reduced by reason of the opening of Shop No.10405 in the adjacent shop and therefore the order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

3.It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that considering the drop in sales in Shop No.10202 and considering the objections by the public the impugned order was passed by the second respondent and it is also made clear that depending upon the increase in sales or demand in that area the Shop No.10405 will be opened in future and closure of Shop No.10405 was only temporary one and it was not permanently closed.

¶23

4.It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent that the first respondent has got the power to open and close the TASMAC Shop and the second respondent has no power to order of closure of any TASMAC Shop.

¶24

5.It is not in dispute that the first respondent as the competent authority has the power to grant licence for opening of TASMAC Shop or closure of such shop in any area and the second respondent has no such power. Admittedly, the impugned order directing the closure of Shop No.10405 was passed by the second respondent without reference to any order of the first respondent. Further, the petitioner was granted licence to run the bar attached to the Shop No.10405 and if Shop No.10405 were directed to be closed, the petitioner's business would be affected and therefore without hearing the petitioner, the second respondent ought not to have passed such order of closure. As the second respondent has no power to closure of such Shop, the order which is impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to open the TASMAC retail Shop bearing No.10405 in Door No.82, Big Sourastra Street, Woraiyur, Trichy, if such place is not an objectionable place having regard to the conditions stated therein. No costs.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

gsr

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶32

2.The District Manager,

¶33

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC) BHEL Nagar,Tiruchirappalli.

¶34

3.The Senior Regional Manager,

¶35

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC)Tiruchirappalli +2 cc to Mr.S.Kanagarajan,Advocate Sr NO.14062,13709

¶36

+1cc to Special Government Pleader Sr No.13922

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

W.P(MD)No.2140 of 2013

¶39

13.03.2013

¶40

rg.25.03.2013 2p/7c

M. Ganesan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ganesan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sunpak, Vs the Commissioner of Central

Dr.M.Balasubramanian, Vs the District Collector

R.Rajendran, Vs the Conseravator of Forest

A. Suyambulingam, Vs the Managing Director

Dr.P.Anandaraj, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

K.Chandra Segaran, Vs the Director of School