Disposed

Raj v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Sept 2017WP(MD)/11036/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition seeking to restrain the opening of a Tasmac shop in Sunaparai was disposed of as no proposal exists currently. The court reiterated that Tasmac shops require planning approval, building permits, and compliance with zoning regulations before opening, leaving all other issues open.

What did the court decide?

No order required at present; issues left open subject to compliance with planning and zoning laws.

Raj Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.11036 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD).No.8457 of 2017

Raj

: Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

The District Manager, TASMAC,

¶13

Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶14

: Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from opening the Tasmac Shop in Sunaparai at Pukkodu Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District or any other place under the limit of Kannanoor Village Panchayat.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Vinayak For Mr.B.Jameel Arasu Standing Counsel For TASMAC

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ]

¶20

This writ petition has been filed in public interest for the benefit of villagers of Kannanoor Village in Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The writ petitioner seeks to restrain the respondents from opening the Tasmac liquor shop in Sunaparai in Pukkadu

¶22

¶23

Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, under the limit of Kannanoor Village Panchayat.

¶24

3.When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it was submitted that there is no proposal to open the shop at present. But, it appears that such an idea was earlier mooted. That is why, the villagers conducted agitations and also submitted representations to the authorities. Though no further orders are required at present in this writ petition, we make it clear that we leave open all the issues. We have already held that the Tasmac shops can be housed only in premises that have a proper planning approval and building permit. That apart, the use of the premises must be in conformity with the zoning regulations. Unless all the parameters laid down in law are fulfilled, such shop cannot be opened.

¶25

4.With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.

¶32

- 1 cc TO Mr.B.Jameel Arasu , Advocate in SR No. 76474 + 1 cc TO Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar , Advocate in SR No. 76374

¶33

tsg

¶34

AE/GT/SAR2/06.11.2017/2P/4C

¶35

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11036 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).No.8457 of 2017 dated: 04.09.2017

¶36

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

Raj v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj 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

Soundararaja Mills Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-Ii

R. Easter Raj, Vs the District Collector

M. Dharamalingam Vs the Commissioner

The Chairman and Managing Vs N. Indirani

I.Devaram Justin, Vs the District Collector

Thangapandiyan Vs the District Collector