Disposed

S.Suresh v. The chief Secretary

Madras HC20 Oct 2017WP/26836/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the court directed the Deputy Collector (Revenue), the competent authority, to dispose of a pending representation within one week regarding a liquor shop application near a temple in Karaikal. The petitioners and private respondents must be put on notice. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to pass appropriate orders on pending representation within one week after putting petitioner and private respondents on notice.

S.Suresh Vs The chief Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 20.10.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.No.26836 of 2017 & WMP.No.28563 of 2017

¶6

S.Suresh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Secretary,
Government of Pudhucherry,
Secretariat, Beach Road,
Pudhucherry.
2.The District Collector,
District Collector Officer,
Karaikal, Pudhucherry.
3.The Deputy Collector(Revenue),
Department of Prohibition,
Office of the District Collector,
Karaikal, Pudhucherry.
4.The Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Karaikal,
Pudhucherry.
5.The Member Secretary,
Town Planning,
Office of the Town Planning,
Karaikal, Pudhucherry.
6.Mr.Thirumurugan
7.Mr.Subramanian ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer:-Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 5^th respondent not to give any permission or approval to the 6^th and 7^th respondents from opening a liquor or wine shop at Ambakarathur, Pazhaiyar, Karaikal, where nearby an Arulmigu Ashtabuja Pathrakali Amman Temple is situated.

¶8

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

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s Greetha Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.Syed Mustafa,

¶10

Government Pleader (P) for R1 to R5

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH,J.)

¶13

This public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner inter alia alleging that contrary to the rules and notwithstanding the existence of a temple, within the prohibited distance, a liquor shop is likely to be located.

¶14

The learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) appearing for respondents 1 to 5 would submit that though an application is received and so is the representation made by the petitioner, a decision is yet to be made. He further submits that within a reasonable time, the application vis-a-vis o representation dated 09.10.2017 has to be disposed of.

¶15

Considering the above, the third respondent, being the competent authority, is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on the pending representation of the petitioner dated 09.10.2017 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after putting the petitioner as well as the private respondents viz., respondents 6 and 7, on notice. Based upon the same, the issue of granting permission for shifting can be considered.

¶16

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

raa

¶21

¶22

1.The Chief Secretary,

¶23

Government of Pudhucherry, Secretariat, Beach Road, Pudhucherry.

¶24

2.The District Collector, District Collector Officer, Karaikal, Pudhucherry.

¶25

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

¶26

3.The Deputy Collector(Revenue), Department of Prohibition, Office of the District Collector, Karaikal, Pudhucherry.

¶27

4.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Karaikal, Pudhucherry.

¶28

5.The Member Secretary, Town Planning, Office of the Town Planning, Karaikal, Pudhucherry.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.Greetha Senthilkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.74222
+1cc to the Government Pleader(Pondy), S.R.No.74301
W.P.No.26836 of 2017
SVI(CO)
CA(23/10/2017)

¶30

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

S.Suresh v. The chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Suresh v. The chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangarajan Narasimhan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Boopathy Vs G.Vaithiyalingam

Thiru.D.Natarajan, Vs The Chief Engineer

Mr.M.Rangan, Vs The Governemnt of Tamil Nadu

K.K.Rajendran, Vs The Principal Secretary to

M.Viswanathan, Vs The District Collector