Dismissed

M.Rajendhiran, v. The Tamil Nadu State

Madras HC13 Jul 2018WP/11374/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking issuance of a liquor license without the No Objection Certificate of a dissenting legal heir, the Court directed the State Marketing Corporation to grant the license only upon obtaining NOCs from all legal heirs, mandating the petitioner to pursue civil remedies against others.

What did the court decide?

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation is directed to grant the licence subject to the condition that all legal heirs give their no objection certificates.

M.Rajendhiran, Vs The Tamil Nadu State — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 13.7.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.11374 of 2018 & WMP.No.13274 of 2018

¶6

M.Rajendhiran ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs 1.The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation rep. by its District Manager, Chennai South District, No.B4 Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-58.

¶8

2.T.Kalavathy 3.D.Sugumar 4.V.Sarojini Venkatesan ...Respondents

¶9

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue license to the bar attached to the shop No.729 by accepting the NOC issued by the legal heirs Manokaran, Dhanasekar, Murali, Radhika and Prakash and further without insisting the NOC from the other legal heirs Kalavathy, Sugumar & Sarojini.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Manimaran For Respondent-1 : Mr.P.Arumugha Rajan For Respondent-2 : Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Heard both.

¶13

The petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to issue licence to sell eatables and collect empty bottles in the bar attached to retail vending shop No.729 by accepting the no objection certificate issued by the legal heirs of Manokaran, Dhanasekar, Murali, Radhika and Prakash and further without insisting the NOC from the other legal heirs Kalavathy, Sugumar & Sarojini.

¶14

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

¶15

One of the legal heirs namely Sarojini – the fourth respondent herein is opposing the establishment of the bar and she has not given her no objection certificate like her sister and another brother. In the meantime, the the petitioner approached the Fifth Assistant Judge, Civil Court Chennai by filing O.S.No.2881 of 2018 wherein the petitioner seeks a decree for permanent injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 8 therein, who are the legal heirs of one Mr.Duraisamy, from disturbing the petitioner from the schedule premises without due process of law.

¶16

Admittedly, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited is not a party to the said suit. Therefore, whatever the decree that has been obtained by the petitioner herein will bind only the defendants therein. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, being a State Owned Corporation, should not unnecessarily involve themselves in private litigation and create further problems. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited shall grant the licence subject to the condition that all the legal heirs give their no objection certificates.

¶17

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the Civil Court as against the defendants therein. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, Chennai South District, No.B4 Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-58. +1cc to Mr.M.Manimaran, Advocate Sr.46322 +1cc to Mr.P.Arumugarajan, Advocate Sr.46296 WP.No.11374 of 2018& WMP.No.13274 of 2018 sv[co] srg 24/07/2018

¶18

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

M.Rajendhiran, v. The Tamil Nadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajendhiran, v. The Tamil Nadu State

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

M/S. Alden Prepress Services Vs Deputy Commissioner of

E-H 218 Sri Senbakagiri, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of

Champa Devi, Vs the Tax Recovery OFFICER-1

Radha Soami Satsang Beas Vs The Secretary to Government

M/s.Alkraft Thermo Vs The Deputy Commissioner of

S.Singaravadivel, Vs The Commissioner