Allowed

D.Ravikumar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC21 Dec 2018WP/34335/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Corporation of Chennai to consider his representation for permission to run a bunk shop. The single judge, without examining merits, directed the second respondent to consider the representation and pass orders on merits within six weeks, dismissing the petition thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on merits within six weeks.

D.Ravikumar Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.12.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. 34335 of 2018

¶6

D.Ravikumar ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. 2. The Chairperson/Zonal Executive Engineer (Zone-9), (The Township Vending Committee), Corporation of Chennai, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 23.07.2018 as per the provisions of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood Regulation) Act, 2014 made for granting permission/ Certificate of Vending and till such time not to disturb with the running of the petitioner's bunk shop Near Perambur Railway Station, Amma Water can near, Aavin Booth near, Perambur, Chennai-600 011, wherein selling tea, coffee and food items by using LPG Gas Stove.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gopinath For Respondents : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok, Standing Counsel

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation seeking to run the bunk shop.

¶10

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

¶11

According to the petitioner, he was running a small bunk shop, and he has submitted a representation dated 23.07.2018 seeking a permission to run a bunk shop before the 2^nd respondent. But, so far, the application was not considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the limited nature of prayer sought in the Writ Petition, without going into the merits of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass suitable orders on merits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With the said direction, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings,
Chennai-600 003.
2. The Chairperson/Zonal
Executive Engineer (Zone-9),
(The Township Vending Committee),
Corporation of Chennai,
Basin Bridge Road,
Chennai-600 034.
+1cc to Mr.R.Gopinath, Advocate, S.R.No.89290
+1cc to Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok, Advocate, S.R.No.89793
W.P. 34335 of 2018
CS/22/01/2019

¶14

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

D.Ravikumar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ravikumar v. The Commissioner

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

R.Ravi, Vs The Director of Town

Indira Gangadharan, Vs The Chairman / Registrar-In-

Smt.Mumtaj Begam Vs The Government of Puducherry

C.Selvaraj Vs The Association of

Sri Sivaraman and Co. Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Vijay Gowtham Engineering Works Vs The Commissioner