Disposed

P.Ramasamy,S/o.Mr.Palanisamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Aug 2018WP/18135/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing removal of a TASMAC shop allegedly violating distance rules. The Court held that since the Collector had taken a final decision, the petitioner was entitled to be informed of its basis. It directed the District Manager to communicate the decision within a week.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to communicate the District Collector's decision to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due within one week along with Corporation proceedings.

P.Ramasamy,S/o.Mr.Palanisamy Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated : 01.8.2018

¶3

Coram :

¶4

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.18135 of 2018 & WMP.No.21430 of 2018

¶6

P.Ramasamy ...Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 2.The Regional Manager, TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), Coimbatore 3.The District Revenue Officer/ Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, No.305-C, Vilangurichi Road, Peelamedu, Old Chintamani Co-op.Godown, Coimbatore-4. 4.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (TASMAC), I.M.F.S.Depot, Tirupur PO, Tirupur District 5.Mr.Subburaya Gounder 6.Mr.Sakthivel ...Respondents

¶7

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to shift shop No. 3453 in survey No.1360/2 in Ward No.10, Mulanur village, Mulanur Panchayat, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District to some other place where it will not cause any disturbance to anyone.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.K.V.Sundararajan For Respondent-1 :Mr.R.P.Prathap Singh, GA For Respondents 2 to 4 :Mr.K.Sathiskumar For Respondents 5 & 6 :Mr.M.Guruprasad

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶12

The petitioner and the fifth respondent are brothers and are sons of one Mr.Palanisamy Gounder. The sixth respondent is the son of the fifth respondent.

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition to direct the official respondents to shift TASMAC shop No.3453 from the existing place, which is owned by respondents 5 and 6. According to the petitioner, the shop in question violates the distance rule and therefore, it is a nuisance apart from the fact that the petitioner is put to prejudice because it is adjacent to the petitioner's agricultural lands.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation submits that the District Collector considered all the issues and found that the location of the shop in question is unobjectionable and accordingly granted permission. He has also produced the written instructions given by the fourth respondent vide letter dated 30.7.2018 stating that the shop in question does not infringe the distance rule.

¶15

As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to several representations given, the petitioner was informed by the third respondent vide communication dated 05.7.2018 addressed to the fourth respondent that the petitioner should be intimated about the outcome of the representation submitted to the District Collector.

¶16

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the District Collector took a decision, passed orders and only based on that, the shop in question has been opened.

¶17

Since already the District Collector has taken a decision in the matter, the petitioner is entitled to know the basis of such a decision and if he is aggrieved by that, it is open to him to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

¶18

In the light of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the fourth respondent to communicate the decision of the District Collector to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due within a period of one

¶19

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

¶20

week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the proceedings of the respondent – Corporation. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMP is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶22

//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
RS
To
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.
2.The Regional Manager,
TamilNadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
(TASMAC), Coimbatore
3.The District Revenue Officer/
Senior Regional Manager,
TASMAC, No.305-C,
Vilangurichi Road, Peelamedu,
Old Chintamani Co-op.Godown,
Coimbatore-4.
4.The District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,
(TASMAC), I.M.F.S.Depot,
Tirupur PO, Tirupur District
+1cc to Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, Advocate SR.No.53070
+1cc to Mr.M.Guruprasad, Advocate SR.No.54150
+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish kumar, Advocate SR.No. 52297
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.52891
WP.No.18135 of 2018&
WMP.No.21430 of 2018

¶23

VGI(CO) GN(21/08/2018)

¶24

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

P.Ramasamy,S/o.Mr.Palanisamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ramasamy,S/o.Mr.Palanisamy 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

Tvl.Madurai Meenakshi Marbles Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.3 F Industries Ltd, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl.J.M.Tyres, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax

M/s.India Furniture Products Vs The Commissioner of Central

St. Neva Miller Matriculation Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/s.Sri Naachimaar Engineering Vs The Assistant Commissoner