Dismissed

Umadevi, W/O. Periyasamy, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC25 Mar 2015WA(MD)/167/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a Writ Appeal under the Letters Patent Act challenging an order that refused an extension of a milk booth licence. The Court held that moral grounds cannot substitute for a subsisting legal right to maintain the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the Learned Single Judge. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Umadevi, W/O. Periyasamy, Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.03.2015 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S.RAVI

¶5

W.A.(MD)No.167 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

¶6

Umadevi

¶7

1.The Commissioner, Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶8

2.The Junior Engineer, Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶9

... Respondents/Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, against the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by this court in W.P.(MD) No.1847 of 2015. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction more in the form of Writ to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in A16/26371/1999, daetd 7.2.15 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvakumaran

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by S.TAMILVANAN,J.)

¶14

Challenging the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.1847 of 2015 the Writ Appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶16

3.It is seen that the appellant / petitioner filed the aforesaid Writ petition seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the Commissioner, Tutucorin Corporation, Tuticorin, the first respondent therein in proceeding No.A16/23371/1999, dated 07.02.2015.

¶17

4.It is not in dispute that the appellant / petitioner was given licence to run a milk booth for a period of one year from 2001 – 2002. After the expiry of the said period, the first respondent issued a notice to the appellant / petitioner to hand over the milk booth as per the terms and conditions of the licence given in favour of the appellant / petitioner. However, without handing over the same, the appellant / petitioner filed the above Writ petition seeking extension of lease period from 2002 – 2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

5.Learned Single Judge having considered the facts and

¶19

¶20

circumstances has decided that the appellant / petitioner has no subsisting right to seek the extension of the licence period.

¶21

6.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having two daughters and she is the breadwinner of the family. However, based on a moral ground, we cannot decide any legal issue, if that be so, the same may be an additional point to support the legal right. Merely based on the moral ground, a Writ petition cannot be decided when there is no subsisting legal right available in favour of the appellant/ petitioner.

¶22

7.On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no legal ground available to maintain the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

8.In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Learned Single Judge.

¶24

No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.

¶25

Sd//True Copy/

¶26

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶27

Sub- Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

1.The Commissioner, Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶30

2.The Junior Engineer, Thoothukudi Corporation, Thoothukudi.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.T.Selvakumaran, Advocate in SR.No.14908 nbj sm:16.04.2015:2P/4C

¶32

W.A.(MD)No.167 of 2015

¶33

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

Umadevi, W/O. Periyasamy, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umadevi, W/O. Periyasamy, v. the Commissioner

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

The Registrar (Admn.), Vs the Principal Secretary

S.Chinnappan, Vs the District Collector

P.Muthulakshmi Vs the Registrar General

The Secretary to the Vs K.Govindaraj

S.Rajendraprased, Vs the Superintendent of Police

T.Vijayakumar Vs the Principal District Judge