Disposed

Dharmarasu@Dharamaraj Kannu v. the District Collector

Madras HC3 Oct 2017WP(MD)/18279/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to prevent the opening of a proposed TASMAC shop. Since the petitioner's representation regarding the shop's location was pending, the Court directed the District Collector to examine it fairly and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's representation was directed to be examined by the District Collector within four weeks on merits.

Dharmarasu@Dharamaraj Kannu Vs the District Collector — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.10.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.18279 of 2017

¶8

Dharmarasu @ Dharamaraj

¶9

: Petitioner

¶10

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District,

¶11

Thanjavur.

¶12

2.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu Sales and Marketing Corporation Limited(TASMAC), Thanjavur,

¶13

Thanjavur District.

¶14

3.The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Sales and Marketing Corporation Limited(TASMAC), Orathanadu,

¶15

Thanjavur District.

¶16

: Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to open the proposed TASMAC Shop starting in the place of Kannukudi Village, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District within the stipulated time on the basis of the Petitioner's representation, dated 11.08.2017.

¶18

For Petitioner :M/s.S.T.Sasidharan Tamil kani

¶19

For Respondent-1 :Mr.T.R.Janarthanan Additional Govt.Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Satheesh Kumar 2 and 3 for Mr.H.Arumugam Standing Counsel for TASMAC

¶20

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

O R D E R

*****************

[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J. ]

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the the respondents not to open the proposed TASMAC Shop starting in the place of Kannukudi Village, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District within the stipulated time on the basis of the Petitioner's representation dated 11.08.2017.

¶26

2.Heard both sides. No counter is filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶27

3.By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶28

4.According to the Petitioner, he has made a representation on 11.08.2017 addressed to the first respondent/The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur, whereby and where-under he has prayed for shifting the proposed liquor shop from the place in a village to another place, so as to enable the village public to live peacefully. It appears that the said representation, dated 11.08.2017, addressed to the first respondent/The District Collector, Thanjavur District is still pending as on date and not yet disposed of.

¶29

5.At this stage of hearing of the matter, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent informs this Court that if certain time limit is fixed by this Court, then, the first respondent will look into the representation of the Petitioner, dated 11.08.2017 and will dispose of the same on merits.

¶30

6.Considering the limited relief sought for by the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition namely, for passing of an order by this Court in directing the respondents not to open the propose TASMAC shop starting in the place of Kannukudi Village, Orathanadu, Thanjavur District, this Court, in the interest of justice, fair play, good conscience and equity, directs the first respondent to look into the representation of the Petitioner, dated 11.08.2017 in a fair, just, dispassionate and unbiased manner and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits, of course by providing reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. It cannot be gain-said that the first respondent shall pass orders untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present Writ Petition, within a period of four https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

¶32

7.With the above said observation(s) and direction(s), the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶35

/True Copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶37

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District,Thanjavur.

¶38

2.The District Manager,

¶39

Tamil Nadu Sales and Marketing Corporation Limited(TASMAC), Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.

¶40

3.The Regional Manager,

¶41

Tamil Nadu Sales and Marketing Corporation Limited(TASMAC), Orathanadu, Thanjavur District.

¶42

+1cc to M/S.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate SR.No.81565

¶43

+1cc to M/S.S.T.SASIDHARAN TAMILKANI, Advocate SR.No.81499 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 81537

¶44

vsn

¶45

MAS/JC/SAR2:11.10.2017:3P-7C

¶46

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.18279 Of 2017 03.10.2017

¶47

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

Dharmarasu@Dharamaraj Kannu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmarasu@Dharamaraj Kannu 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

Ganesan, S/O. Thangavel, Vs the Commissioner

Gurupanchapakesavan Vs the District Revenue Officer

R.Pushpa, Vs the Director of Medical