Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 seeking Certiorari and Mandamus to quash proceedings regarding molasses transportation were allowed as the issue was already settled in a prior decision by the same Court.
The Writ Petitions stand allowed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 04.01.2017
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.Nos.21303 to 21305 of 2002
C. Sundaram, 5/16, Ponnayeekadu, Sangagiri R.S., Salem District. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.21303 of 2002 Ponrajendar Rep.by Power Agent A.K.Thangavel, Thirunagar Colony, Mandapathukadu, Sangagiri Town, Salem District. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.21304 of 2002 S.Chandraprakash, By Power Agent C.Sundaram, 5/16, Ponnayeekadu, Sangagiri R.S. Salem District .. Petitioner in W.P.No.21305 of 2002 Vs 1. State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
Prayer in all W.Ps. : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent comprised in proceedings C.No.04 / ADSP / PEW / DPI / 2002, C.No. 03 / ADSP / PEW / DPI / 2002 & C.No.02 / ADSP / PEW / DPI / 2002 respectively, dated 20.5.2002 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner seeking to interfere with the transportation of molasses from any place outside Tamil Nadu to any other place outside Tamil Nadu through the State of Tamilnadu.
Petitioner in all WPs. : Mr. Rahul Balaji Respondents in all WPs.: R1 to R3 – No Appearance
R4&R5 – served, No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
It is brought to my notice that the issue raised in these Writ Petitions stands covered in favour of the petitioner vide decision of this Court in R. Sanjeevi Vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 (2013 SCC OnLine Mad 266) in W.P.Nos.21609 to 21611 of 2002.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
msr
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri Town Police Station,
Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District.
3. The Additional Superintendent of Police,
Prohibition and Enforcement Wing,
Dharmapuri.
+1 CC to Mr.M. Sathish Parasaran, Advocate sr 638.
+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 1648.
W.P.Nos.21303 to 21305 of 2002 SK(CO) sp(10/10/2017)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitions seeking writ of Certiorari and Mandamus should be allowed given a prior decision on similar facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Sanjeevi Vs. State of TamilnaduFollowed¶16
R. Sanjeevi Vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 (2013 SCC OnLine Mad 266) in
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. Sundaram
Ponrajendar
S.Chandraprakash
State of Tamilnadu
Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
