Dismissed

N.Rajaram v. the Commissioner

Madras HC24 Aug 2017WP/17377/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought to quash municipal proceedings and demand a license. The High Court noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner no longer carried on business, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition to quash proceedings and direct the issuance of a license was dismissed.

N.Rajaram Vs the Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶6

W.P.No.17377 of 2004

¶7

N.Rajaram ... Petitioner
v.
The Commissioner
Karaikudi Municipality
Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District ... Respondent

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.A1/2574/2004 dated 3.6.2004 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondent to issue license to the petitioner as sought for on 4.3.2004, (in the event of the coming to the conclusion that license is required for the business)

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy

¶10

O R D E R The petitioner, who is a lessee of the premises, has filed the

¶11

above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in proceedings dated 03.06.2004 and to quash the same and further direct the respondent to issue license to him, as sought for on 04.03.2004.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.A.S.Thambuswamy,

¶17

learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is not carrying on the business now and that the owner of the premises

¶18

Ms.Shanthi is carrying on the business in the premises.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in

¶20

view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the writ petition can be dismissed.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the writ petition stand dismissed. No costs.

24.08.2017

The Commissioner Karaikudi Municipality Karaikudi, Sivagangai District

¶26

W.P.No.17377 of 2004

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

N.Rajaram v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Rajaram 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

M.Muthusamy Vs The District Collector

S.Mohan, Vs The Tahsildar

Southern Polypet P.Ltd., Vs The Union of India

S.Udayashankar Vs the Executive Officer

Mrs.Vanaroja, Vs The District Collector of

Mrs. Vijaya, Vs The District Collector of