Disposed

C.Sendrayan, v. the Tasmac Manager

Madras HC3 Mar 2014WP(MD)/16894/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the location of a TASMAC shop on a busy road in Periyakulam. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Collector to consider the petitioner's representation for shop shifting within four weeks and pass appropriate orders. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for shifting the TASMAC shop and pass orders within four weeks.

C.Sendrayan, Vs the Tasmac Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.03.2014

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶8

Writ Petition (MD) No.16894 of 2013

¶9

C.Sendrayan ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The TASMAC Manager, TASMAC Godown, Madurai Road, Karuvel Nayakanpatti,Theni.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Collector Office,Theni. ... Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 15.04.2013.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Velmurugan For 1^st Respondent : Mr.Muniasamy For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.M.Alagadevan, Special Government Pleader.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J. )

¶17

The short prayer with which the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition is only to direct the second respondent to consider his representation for shifting of the TASMAC shop.

¶18

2.Heard Mr.P.Velmurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Muniasamy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M.Alagadevan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

¶19

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the TASMAC shop in question is located in a place which is a busy road at Periyakulam. The petitioner himself is running a tea shop. Therefore, he gave a representation which has not been considered forcing him to come to this Court with the above writ petition.

¶20

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

¶21

4.Considering the limited prayer made, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the

¶22

¶23

representation of the petitioner, dated 15.04.2013 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(Crl)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1 The District Collector,

¶30

Collector Office,Theni.

¶31

2 .The TASMAC Manager,

¶32

TASMAC Godown,

¶33

Madurai Road,

¶34

Karuvel Nayakanpatti,Theni.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.P.Velmurugan Advocate, Sr.No. 13658

¶36

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 13875 sms

¶37

AA/13.03.2014/2p- 5c/

¶38

Writ Petition (MD) No.16894 of 2013 03.03.2014

¶39

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

C.Sendrayan, v. the Tasmac Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sendrayan, v. the Tasmac Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Ramesh, Vs the District Collector

Minor. Suresh Kumar Vs the Tahsildar

The Commissioner, Vs R. Venkatramani