Petitioner challenged an order relicensing TASMAC shops near highways without hearing him. The Court set aside the order as passed hastily without opportunity of hearing or enquiry, remitting the matter for a fresh inquiry within eight weeks.
Impugned order of rejection is set aside; matter remitted for fresh inquiry and hearing within eight weeks.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P(MD)No.11942 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD) No.9203 of 2017
Vinoth Kumar ... Petitioner
-vs-
3.S.M.K.Mahalingam ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in Ka.No.360/2017/A2 dated 12.06.2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to close the shops in TASMAC Shop Nos.8527, 8528, 8575, 8536, 8540 and 8530 and bars attached to the shops in the relocated spots in and around Bus Stand at Theni District.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.B.Pugazhendhi Addl. Advocate General Asst. by Mr.M.Muniyasamy Standing counsel *****
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.06.2017 passed in Ka.No.360/2017/A2, vide which, it was informed to the petitioner that TASMAC Shop Nos.8527, 8528, 8575, 8536, 8540 and 8530 and bars attached to the shops were relocated in and around the Bus Stand at Theni District pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to close down the said shops.
2
Supreme Court. However, all of a sudden, those shops were opened in the very same area in some other buildings, in which several residential areas are situated and the act of the Government created panic among the people. Though the Government has stated that the said area is not located near to any highways, the communication dated 19.06.2014 issued by the Commissioner, Municipality would amply prove the fact that the area is maintained by the Highways department only. He would further submit that the petitioner made a representation dated 06.06.2017 to the 2nd respondent for closure of the shops and his request was rejected vide order impugned herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.
3
shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CSI)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To:
Theni District.
+One cc to Mr.J.Anandkumar, Advocate, SR.No.63864
+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.64004
ar/rm
RL/5C/3P/MR/SAR1/14/7/2017
W.P(MD)No.11942 of 2017
06/07/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim to close TASMAC shops is liable to be set aside as it was passed in a hasty manner without hearing the petitioner and without stating whethe
Vinoth Kumar
The District Collector, Collectorate, Theni District
The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), Theni District
S.M.K.Mahalingam
R. Mahadevan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
