The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a communication granting a retail outlet license. The Court held the petitioner was not a person aggrieved and found no cause of action.
The writ petition stands dismissed. Liberty given to challenge the subsequent order if so advised.
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: 20.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
W.P.No.26493 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.28210 and 28211 of 2017
Senthil Murugan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Revenue Officer,
Collectorate Villupuram,
Villupuram District.
2.The Petroleum and Explosives
Officer, A and B Wing,
Block 1 to 8, II Floor,
26, Haddows Road, Sasthiri Bhavan,
Chennai – 6.
3.G.Barathan .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call
for the impugned order of the second respondent bearing
No.P/SC/TN/7853(P349946) dated 11.08.2017 is illegal and quash
the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ranganathan
for Mr.K.Raghuraman
For Respondents : Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
Challenging the communication of the second respondent dated 11.08.2017, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.What is challenged in this writ petition is only a communication issued by the second respondent informing the petitioner that the license for retail outlet has been granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai on 11.08.2017. Incidentally, it has been stated that the said authority was requested to look into the complaint of the petitioner to whom it is referred to.
3.We do not find any merit in this writ petition as there is no cause of action available for the petitioner to challenge it apart from being a person not aggrieved. We also find from the records that the aforesaid complaint has also been disposed of by the aforesaid authority by the memo dated 15.09.2017, which is also not put into challenge before us.
4.In such view of the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order, if so advised. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-Sd/Assistant Registrar
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
W.P.No.26493 of 2017
CO(GJII)
VS 16/11/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit person to challenge an administrative communication granting a license without suffering legal detriment or loss of civil rights?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Senthil Murugan
District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Villupuram
Petroleum and Explosives Officer
G. Barathan
M.M. Sundresh
M. Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
