Dismissed

T.Rajmohan v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Oct 2016WP(MD)/15458/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court examined a writ petition challenging an enquiry notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in a dispute over a C-Form licence. The court held the notice unsustainable as the RDO lacks jurisdiction to grant the licence or compel mediation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Notice dated 09.07.2015 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to approach the District Collector regarding renewal.

T.Rajmohan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.10.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.15458 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

¶7

T.Rajmohan ... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli.

¶10

3.T.Jayaraman 4.J.Thilagavathi

¶11

5.T.Rethinathammal ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminated in the impugned Notice in Rc.A1-1107-2015 dated 09.07.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, unenforceable, ultravires without jurisdiction and directing the 1^st respondent by way of Mandamus not to issue C Form Licence either in favour respondents 3 to 5 to run M/s.Thangaraja Theatre at the property comprised in Ayan Punja land Old S.F.No.200/1A new S.F.No.69/1A1 situate at Pirattiyur Village, Edamalaipattipudur, Tiruchirappalli West Taluk and Tiruchirappalli District measuring to an extent of North South on the western side 128 feet, on the Eastern side 105 feet, East West on the Northern side 171 feet, on the Southern side 208 feet and pass orders.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Shankar Murali For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah (R1 & R2) Government Advocate For Respondents : Ms.Maria Roseline (R3 to R5)

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records

¶17

¶18

culminated in the impugned Notice in Rc.A1-1107-2015 dated 09.07.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, unenforceable, ultravires without jurisdiction and directing the 1^st respondent by way of Mandamus not to issue C Form Licence either in favour respondents 3 to 5 to run M/s.Thangaraja Theatre at the property comprised in Ayan Punja land Old S.F.No.200/1A new S.F.No.69/1A1 situate at Pirattiyur Village, Edamalaipattipudur, Tiruchirappalli West Taluk and Tiruchirappalli District measuring to an extent of North South on the western side 128 feet, on the Eastern side 105 feet, East West on the Northern side 171 feet, on the Southern side 208 feet and pass orders.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶20

According to the petitioner, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 3 to 5 regarding issuance of C- Form Licence. When the said dispute is pending, now the second respondent issued Notice in Rc.A1-1107-2015 dated 09.07.2015, for conducting enquiry and he has no power to conduct the enquiry.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 would submit that already the respondents 3 to 5 made application before the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, for renewal of C- Form Licence and to cancel the C-Form Licence issued in favour of the petitioner. Pending consideration of the appeal, since there is a dispute between the brothers, the District Collector, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirappalli, to conduct Mediation between the brothers, hence, the above notice has been issued by the second respondent.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not willing to appear for Mediation, since already several rounds of Mediation failed.

¶23

In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not an authority to grant C-Form Licence, he cannot compel any party to appear for Mediation and he has no power to issue the impugned Notice, therefore, the impugned Notice, dated 09.07.2015, is hereby set aside. However, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli, regarding renewal of C-Form licence.

¶24

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶27

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

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

MPK

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli.

¶33

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Collectorate, Tiruchirappalli. +1cc to Mr.K.S.Shankar Advocate Sr.No. 60014 +1cc to M/S J.MARIA ROSELINE Advocate Sr.No. 59695 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 59868 JAM/01.11.16/SKS-RR/3P-6C

¶34

W.P(MD)No.15458 of 2015

¶35

06.10.2016

¶36

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

T.Rajmohan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Rajmohan 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

K. Sudhakar Vs the State Inforamtion

K.Danalakshmi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Minor. a. Vignesh Vs the Secretary to Government

A. Malaichamy Vs Inspector General of

V. Kanaga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Anilkumar Vs the Commissioner