Dismissed

M.Ganesan v. the Special Commissioner &

Madras HC19 Jun 2017WP/19508/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a No Objection Certificate. The court held the petition infructuous because the petitioner had already been issued the certificate in a prior order. No order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

M.Ganesan Vs the Special Commissioner & — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.19508 of 2003

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.No.24356 of 2003

¶8

M.Ganesan ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer protection, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer, Ramanthapuram. 3. The District Supply Officer, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records of the first respondent in Rc.No.K.4.23225/2000, dated 21.03.2001 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control (Regulation of Trade) order 1973.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Solomon Francis For Respondents : Mr. M. Elumalai (Government Advocate)

¶14

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Rc.No.K.4.23225/2000, dated 21.03.2001 and quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control (Regulation of Trade) order 1973.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the order passed in W.M.P.No.24397 of 2001 in W.P.No.16420 of 2001, the petitioner was already issued 'No Objection' Certificate by the second respondent and hence, the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶17

The above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar a m / r n s To 1.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer protection, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Ramanthapuram. 3.The District Supply Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶19

+1cc to Mr.P.Solomon Francis, Advocate, S.R.No.43060

¶20

W.P.No.19508 of 2003 & W.M.P.No.24356 of 2003

¶21

MP(CO) CA(27/06/2017)

¶22

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

M.Ganesan v. the Special Commissioner &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ganesan v. the Special 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

R.Subitha Vs Panchayat Inspector cum

K.Ravikumar Vs the Charman, Vellalar Grama

K.Marimuthu Vs the Chairman, Vallalar Grama

R.Jothi Lakshmi Vs the Director of Government

G.Dhanapal Vs the Tahsildar

K.Chandrasekaran Vs Tn Water Supply and Drainage