Disposed

N.Ganesh v. The District Collector

Madras HC10 Dec 2018WP/32470/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus without adjudicating merits. The court directed the third respondent to consider the petitioners' objections regarding the location of a TASMAC shop and pass orders within four weeks, ensuring due process for all interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to consider the petitioners' objection dated 30.10.2018 and pass orders on merits within four weeks.

N.Ganesh Vs The District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.32470 of 2018

¶6

and W.M.P.Nos.37674 & 37698 of 2018

¶7

N.Ganesh
2. V.Suresh ... Petitioners
vs.
1. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
2. The District Excise Officer,
Coimbatore District,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
3. The District Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing
Corporation Ltd.,
Near FCI Godown,
Pellamedu,
Coimbatore-641 030.
4. Sri Hari ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 herein to consider the objections dated 30.10.2018 sent by the petitioners herein within a stipulated period.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.D.Suriya Narayanan,

¶11

Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Standing Counsel for RR 2 & 3

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Mr.D.Suriya Narayanan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for first respondent and Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for Respondents 2 and 3.

¶14

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

¶15

2.Since, this writ petition is being disposed of without affecting the interest of the fourth respondent and private party, notice to said respondent is dispensed with.

¶16

The petitioners seek for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the objections filed by them dated 30.10.2018, wherein and whereby, the objection to the location of the TASMAC Shop at the site in dispute.

¶17

4.This Court, at this stage, is not expressing any view on the merits of the case itself made by the petitioners, as it is for the 3^rd respondent to consider and decide. Therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the objection raised by the petitioner, this Writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2018 and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, 4^th respondent and other interested parties, if any. Such exercise shall be done by the 3rd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gsi/vsi
To

¶19

The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶20

The District Excise Officer, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore – 641 018. 3. The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Near FCI Godown, Pellamedu, Coimbatore-641 030.

¶21

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

¶22

+1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate SR.No.85179

¶23

+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR.No.85207

¶24

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.85489

¶25

W.P.No.32470 of 2018

¶26

VBA(CO) GMY(03/01/2019)

¶27

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

N.Ganesh v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ganesh 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

S.Jayagantha Vs The Secretary to Government

Mageswari Vs The Branch Manager

Gk Abdul Rehman Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M/s. D.P. Kaviyalakshmi Vs The State Tax Officer

Jayaraman Vs Varadarajan

R.Panneerselvam Vs The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation)/ Chief Commissioner of Income Tax