Allowed

M/S.Romana Distillery v. the Deputy Director of Health

Madras HC3 Nov 2016WP(MD)/9151/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed an impugned order refusing a No Objection Certificate, holding that the first respondent lacked jurisdiction under Section 159(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and directed the second respondent to consider a fresh application on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 07.04.2016 is set aside. Liberty granted to file a fresh application before the second respondent, who is directed to consider it on merits.

M/S.Romana Distillery Vs the Deputy Director of Health — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.11.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.9151 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD).No.7287 of 2016

¶7

M/s.Romana Distillery Industries Private Limited, rep. By its Manager, Sanal.K.S

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Deputy Director of Health Services Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Executive Officer, Thirukurungudi Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

3.The Designated Officer, Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.8039/A3/2015 dated 07.04.2016 and to quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vijayan, Sr.Counsel

¶14

for Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj for RR-1 & 3 Government Advocate Mr.Aaiyuram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate for R-2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Challenging the order passed by the first respondent, dated 07.04.2016, refusing to grant No Objection Certificate to the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶17

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has only filed an application under Section 159(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act for getting the licence before the second respondent. Mistakenly, the second respondent has referred the matter to the first respondent and the first respondent, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who has no power under the Act, passed the impugned order. Hence, the order is non-est in the eye of Law, as the first respondent has no power or authority to reject the application filed by the petitioner.

¶18

¶19

3.Mr.Aaiyuram K.Selvakumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent, on instructions from the second respondent/Executive Officer, who is also present in the Court, submitted that only the second respondent is the competent authority to issue the licence under Section 159(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and mistakenly, the above application has been referred to the first respondent. He further submitted that in the event of the petitioner files a fresh application for granting licence, the second respondent will consider the same on merits and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

4.In view of the above submission made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent, the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.8039/A3/2015 dated 07.04.2016 is set aside. The petitioner is given liberty to file fresh application before the second respondent. In the event of filing any such application, the second respondent is directed to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶21

5.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (Crl.)

¶24

/True copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

1.The Deputy Director of Health Services Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

2.The Executive Officer, Thirukurungudi Panchayat Union, Tirunelveli District.

¶29

3.The Designated Officer,

¶30

Food Safety & Drug Administration Department, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

+1 CC to Mr.B.SARAVANAN, Advocate, SR No.65937

¶32

W.P(MD)No.9151 of 2016 & WMP(MD)7287 of 2016 03.11.2016

¶33

¶34

SH/SKS-RR:22.11.2016:2P/5C

¶35

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

M/S.Romana Distillery v. the Deputy Director of Health

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Romana Distillery v. the Deputy Director of Health

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

T.Villavan Kothai Vs the Inspector General of

Vellaiyammal, W/O.Aathiyappan Vs the District Collector

G.Subramanian, S/O.Gurusamy Vs the Thasildar

M.K.v.Sala Higher Secondary Vs the District Collector

T.Bhagavathi Priya, Vs the General Manager

A.S.Palanisamy Vs the Managing Director