Dismissed

Murugesan v. The District Collector

Madras HC1 Nov 2018WP/8661/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent the installation of a Tasmac shop, the High Court of Madras dismissed the petition. The respondents successfully argued that there was no proposal to locate the shop at the petitioner's requested site, rendering the issuance of a writ unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as no further order was required.

Murugesan Vs The District Collector — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶5

Writ Petition No.8661 of 2017

Murugesan

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶10

2.The District Manager, Tasmac, Coimbatore District.

¶11

3.The General Manager, Tasmac No.8, CMDA Tower, 4^th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to install the Tasmac shop No.1761 at Thirumurugan Nagar, Palathurai Village, Madukarai Taluk, Coimbatore pursuant to the petitioner representation dated 13.03.2017.

¶14

For Petitioner: No Appearance For 1^st Respondent: Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, Government Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.K.Sathishkumar, Standing Counsel

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by S.Manikumar.J)

¶18

Instant writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents, not to install the Tasmac shop No.1761 at Thirumurugan Nagar, Palathurai Village, Madukarai Taluk, Coimbatore pursuant to the petitioner representation dated 13.03.2017.

¶19

2.There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Mr.A.Zakir Hussain, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.Sathishkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶20

3.On the basis of the instruction in Na.Ka.No.2015.R.V.(b) dated 21.04.2017, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that there is no proposal for locating Tasmac shop No.1761 at Thirumurugan Nagar, Palathurai Village, Madukarai Taluk, Coimbatore.

¶21

4.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 made similar submission.

¶22

5.In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no need for issuance of mandamus. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as no further order is required. No Costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

To 1.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶27

2.The District Manager, Tasmac, Coimbatore District.

¶28

3.The General Manager, Tasmac No.8, CMDA Tower, 4^th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.75240

¶30

W.P.No.8661 of 2017

¶31

SS(CO) GSP(04/12/2018)

¶32

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

Murugesan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan 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

Mr.U.Aslam, Vs The Secretary to Government

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy Vs State Rep. by 1.The Chief Secretary

Lion.G.Devarajan Vs The District Collector

P.Selvarajan, Vs The Commissioner

Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram Vs The Principal Chief

P.Jayagopi, Vs The District Collector