Disposed

M.Kanakaraj v. The District Collector

Madras HC13 Oct 2017WP/26803/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a disabled person, filed a writ petition directing authorities to consider his representation for a shop license. The court, noting the limited scope and merits without hearing, directed Respondents 2 and 4 to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within one month.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed Respondents 2 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.08.2017 and pass appropriate orders on merits within one month after hearing.

M.Kanakaraj Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.10.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.26803 of 2017

¶6

M.Kanakaraj .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Collector,

¶9

Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶10

The District Disabled Rehabilitation Officer, District Disabled Rehabilitation Centre, Thiruvallur District.

¶11

The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District.

¶12

The Zonal Officer, Zone-VII, Corporation of Chennai, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053. .. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.08.2017 and to grant permission or licence to run the shop under the category of disabled person.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr.S.Shivakumar

¶15

For respondents: Mr.S.Diwakar, Spl.G.P. for RR-1 to 3

¶16

Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan for R-4

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 23.08.2017 and to grant permission or licence to run the shop under the category of disabled person.

¶19

The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he was issued Disability Certificate indicating 85% permanent physical disability. He had enrolled his name with the State Government, Central Government and other local bodies to avail the concessions and benefits provided by them under various welfare Legislations. The third respondent has also issued permanent disability identity card to him. In order to eke out

¶20

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

¶21

his livelihood, the petitioner intends to start a small bunk shop on the road-side by putting small hut. Hence, he submitted the said representation, dated 23.08.2017 to the respondents seeking to grant permission/licence to start a bunk shop within the Chennai Corporation City limits. Since no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.

¶22

Taking into consideration the limited scope of the prayer made in the Writ Petition and without going into the merits of the case, this Court directs the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the said representation of the petitioner, dated 23.08.2017 and after hearing the petitioner, appropriate orders be passed on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

With the above observations/direction, the Writ Petition

¶24

is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS IV )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
cs
To
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶26

The District Disabled Rehabilitation Officer, District Disabled Rehabilitation Centre, Thiruvallur District.

¶27

The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur District.

¶28

The Zonal Officer, Zone-VII, Corporation of Chennai, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

¶29

- 1 cc to Mr.S.Shivakumar, Advocate,SR.73955 + 1 cc to Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan Advocate,SR.73636 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.73636

¶30

W.P.No.26803 of 2017

¶31

NR 16/11/2017

¶32

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

M.Kanakaraj v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kanakaraj 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

Mrs.Marimuthu, Vs The Commissioner

R.Kunjammal Vs District Collector

A.M.Rajan Vs The Corporation of Chennai

Dr.a.Dhava Palani Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

All India R.M.S./M.M.S.Assis- Vs Union of India, Ministry of

T.Natesan Vs the Commissioner