Dismissed

R.Anbuselvan v. The Managing Director

Madras HC10 Jun 2016WP/36709/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought an adjustment of license bid advance fees and direction to issue tender forms for bar licenses. The court held that no provision for adjustment existed but allowed the petitioners to apply for a refund based on compliance with conditions, directable within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to make an application for refund to be considered by the second respondent within eight weeks.

R.Anbuselvan Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated :: 10.6.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.36709 OF 2015

¶6

1 R.Anbuselvan
2 Kathiresan
3 A.K.Siva
4 Ramaiyah
5 A.R.Elumalai
6 N.Suresh
7 K.Athiyappan
8 K.Murugaraj
9 S.Rangasamy
10 S.Jagadeesan
11 P.S.K.Karunakaran
12 P.Rangasamy
13 T.Kamaraj
14 A.Nilavazhagan
15 S.Lakshmi Kumar
16 T.Subbash
17 T.Murugavel
18 P.S.K.Kanakaraj
19 A.Thirumal
20 R.Ponmari
21 Sathyamoorthy ...Petitioners
versus
1 The Managing Director
TASMAC Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai
Egmore Chennai-8
2 The District Manager
(North Chennai) TASMAC B-4 Ambattur
Industrial Estate Ambattur Chennai-53 ...Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to adjust the license bid advance amount for the month of October - November 2015 and consequently direct the respondents to issue tender forms to the petitioners for conducting tenders in the month of November - December 2015 for giving bar license.

¶8

For petitioners ... Mr.C.Prakasam For respondents ... Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioners are building owners as well as bar licensees in the TASMAC shops situate in and around the Chennai city. Admittedly, the license which is the subject matter of these cases came to an end in November 2015. It appears that at the time when license was granted, the petitioners have paid two months license fees as advance fees. The petitioners now seek for adjustment of the said advance amount while they apply for fresh license for the subsequent period.

¶12

The learned Standing Counsel for the TASMAC submits that in the rules as well as conditions of tender, there is no provision for adjustment of advance fees. But however, if the petitioners say that they have performed their license condition properly, then, they can make an application for refund, which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submitted that the petitioners are agreeable to adopt such a course. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to make proper application to the respondents seeking for refund, which shall be considered by the second respondent in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such application.

¶14

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/2015 is closed. tar s/dAssistant Registrar(V) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1 The Managing Director TASMAC Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Egmore Chennai-8 2 The District Manager (North Chennai) TASMAC B-4 Ambattur Industrial Estate Ambattur Chennai-53 + 1 cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate SR 32248 + 1 cc to M/s.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Advocate SR 31378 ad(co) prk23/6 W.P.No.36709 OF 2015

¶15

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

¶16

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

R.Anbuselvan v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Anbuselvan v. The Managing Director

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

A to Z Services Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Teja Enterprises Vs The Commissioner of Customs

M/s.Electro Flux Equipments Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M.S.Muthuraman, Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing

K. Kumar, Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing

M.S.Muthuraman Vs Tamil Nadu State Marketing