Disposed

S.Suresh v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Mar 2016WP/37730/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent not to locate or re-locate a TASMAC shop near a children's hospital. The Court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within four weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2015 and pass orders within four weeks.

S.Suresh Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.37730 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
S. Suresh .... Petitioner
vs
1. The District Collector,
Office of Collectorate,
Villupuram District
2. The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC),
No.19, TS No.39/I.P., Gandhi Nagar, Pon Nagar,
Trichy – 620 001
3. The District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC),
No.59-A, Ware Housing Corporation,
Chennai Trunk Road,
Villupuram – 605 602

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to locate any TASMAC shop or re-locating the TASMAC shop No.11476 nearby Lotus Children Hospital at Salem Main Road, Yamapper, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶7

For petitioner : Mr.K. Sasindran For 1^st respondent : Mr.A. Zakir Hussain Govt. Advocate For respondents 2 &3: Mr.B. Neduncheziyan Standing Counsel

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to locate any TASMAC shop or re-locate the TASMAC shop No.11476 nearby Lotus Children Hospital at Salem Main Road, Yamapper, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to relocate the TASMAC Shop No.11476 near the hospital and therefore, the petitioner has given a representtion to the third respondent on 01.08.2015. However, the third respondent has not passed any orders in the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2015.

¶12

Mr.A. Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the 1^st respondent and Mr.B. Neduncheziyan, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the third respondent may be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2015 and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶13

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2015 has not been considered by the third respondent, I direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.08.2015 and pass 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. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

¶14

/true copy/

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

The District Collector, Office of Collectorate, Villupuram District

¶19

The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC),
No.19, TS No.39/I.P., Gandhi Nagar, Pon Nagar,
Trichy – 620 001
3. The District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC),
No.59-A, Ware Housing Corporation,
Chennai Trunk Road,
Villupuram – 605 602
1 cc to M/s.K. Sasindran, Advocate, Sr. 16760
1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr. 16969
W.P.No.37730 of 2015
SNS (CO)
kk 28/3

¶20

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

S.Suresh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suresh 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

Tvl.Siemens Ltd, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

M/s. Premier Optical Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Kannappan Iron and Steel Vs The Assistant Commissioner

U.Lathakumari, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

J.Rebecca Vs The Regional Transport Officer

E.Narayanan, Vs The Transport Commissioner