Dismissed

G.Manjula, v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Jul 2017WP/17700/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a co-owner seeking the closure of a TASMAC shop on her property. The Court held the dispute was an internal family matter regarding unimpleaded co-owners and directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court first.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction to close the TASMAC shop was dismissed.

G.Manjula, Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.07.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM.

¶5

Writ Petition No.17700 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.19206 of 2017

¶6

G.Manjula ... Petitioner
vs
1.The District Collector,
Vellore District,
At Vellore.
2.The District Manager,
TASMAC, (retail sales),
TASMAC District Office,
Vellore District,
Vellore – 9.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
K.V.Kuppam, Vellore – 9,
Vellore District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
K.V.Kuppam Police Station,
Vellore District.
5.G.Venkatesan
6.G.Ravi
7.G.Kumarasamy ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to
4 to shut down the IMFL Shop opened in the petitioner's property
bearing S.No.99/2A3, 99/2B1, 99/2A1 and 125/A, Nagal Village,
Gudiyaththam Taluk, Vellore District, admeasuring 1.64.50
Hectares.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
For R1, R3, R4 : M/s.Lalitha
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.M.Johnkennedy

¶7

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

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

Heard Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, M/s.Lalitha, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and Mr.M.John Kennedy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

¶10

2.The petitioner claiming herself to be the joint owner of the property where a TASMAC Shop has been established has approached this Court directing the respondents to close down the said shop. The petitioner's case is that the respondents 5 to 7, who are the brothers without any authority of law have unilaterally executed lease in favour of the TASMAC for establishing a retail vending shop.

¶11

3.The learned counsel appearing for the TASMAC/respondents 1, 3 and 4 submitted that the person who executed a lease is none other than the petitioner's mother Tmt.Valliammal and she has not been made as a party to the writ petition. Further, there is other sister of the petitioner who is also one of the joint owner of the said property and she has also not made as a party respondent.

¶12

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not only the objections pertaining to the right of the respondents 5 to 7 to lease out the property but also because of the sensitivity in the area where there was a rampant illicit brewing or arrack which was brought under control by the Police.

¶13

5.In my considered view, the present litigation appears to be on account of the internal dispute within the family, i.e. between the petitioner and her brothers. The person who has leased out the property is none other than the petitioner's mother and she has not been impleaded as a party in this writ petition. Therefore, at the first instance, the petitioner should seek appropriate remedy before the Civil Court against the co-owners and only then, the petitioner would be entitled to approach the authorities by way of a representation. With regard to the allegation that the area is a very sensitivity area and in the past, there were the group clash on account of illicit brewing of arrack, the first respondent made take note of the situation and assess the situation and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶14

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

¶15

6.With the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

The District Collector,
Vellore District,
At Vellore.
2. The District Manager,
TASMAC, (retail sales),
TASMAC District Office,
Vellore District,
Vellore – 9.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
K.V.Kuppam, Vellore – 9,
Vellore District.
4. The Inspector of Police,
K.V.Kuppam Police Station,
Vellore District.
+ 1 cc to M/s.M.John Kennady, Advocate,SR.48552
+ 1 cc to M/s.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate,SR.49478
+ 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.48765
W.P No.17700 of 2017
SR(CO)
NR 26/07/2017

¶20

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

G.Manjula, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Manjula, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl.Dhanya Sree Precision Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

M/s.R.a.Leather Fashion, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Kcs Nadar Memorial Education Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/S Tectonics Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Aircel Cellular Ltd., Vs Central Board of Excise and

Auromandal Papers and Boards Vs General Manager