Disposed

C.Manikandaprabu, v. the Tamil Nadu State

Madras HC7 Dec 2018WP(MD)/5683/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order disposing of nine writ petitions where the Madurai Bench directed the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation to consider the petitioners' representation regarding adjusted upset prices for their shops and decide the matter within four weeks before dismissing the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 20.01.2018 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

C.Manikandaprabu, Vs the Tamil Nadu State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.03.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.5683 to 5691 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5556 to 5564 of 2018

¶7

C.Manikandaprabu ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5683 of 2018 Tamilselvan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5684 of 2018 Vairavan Ramesh ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5685 of 2018 Sivakumar ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5686 of 2018 J.Rajeswari ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5687 of 2018 Murugan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5688 of 2018 Murugan ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5689 of 2018

¶8

Mariya Savarimuthu Vadivel ...Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5690 of 2018

¶9

Mariya Savarimuthu Vadivel ...Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.5691 of 2018

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd.,

¶12

Rep by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Thalamuthu Natarajar Building, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶13

2.The District Collector,

¶14

Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

3.The District Manager,

¶16

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Konam, Nagercoil,

¶17

Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in WP(MD).Nos.5683 to 5691/2018

¶19

¶20

COMMON PRAYER IN WP(MD).Nos.5683 to 5691/2018:-

¶21

Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-fix the tender conditions and impose the condition to remit 3% of 80% of the monthly sales of the petitioners' shop instead of 3% of entire monthly sales of the bar attached to Petitioners' shop bearing Shop Nos.4729,4737,4710,4830,4746,4720,4728,4747 and 4726 respectively located at Kanyakumari District within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy

¶23

For 2^nd Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader.

¶24

For Respondents 1&3 : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, Standing Counsel. (in all Wps)

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

These writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to the respondents to re-fix the tender conditions and impose the condition to remit 3% of 80% of the monthly sales of the petitioners' shops instead of 3% of entire monthly sales of the bar attached to the petitioners' shops bearing Shop Nos.4729, 4737, 4710, 4830, 4746, 4720, 4728, 4747 and 4726 respectively, located at Kanyakumari District within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶27

2.According to the petitioners, the petitioners are running a bar attached to the TASMAC shops pursuant to the auction conducted by the respondents. At the time of conducting auction, the respondents fixed upset price at the rate of 3% of 100% of actual sale. However, the respondent TASMAC has reduced the upset price at the rate of 3% of 80% of actual sale in respect of other shops. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have submitted representation dated 20.01.2018 before the respondents. Since no order has been passed, the present writ petitions have been filed.

¶28

3.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the first respondent may be directed to pass orders on the representation of the petitioners.

¶29

4.In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20.01.2018 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

¶31

5.With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5556 to 5564 of 2018 are closed.

¶32

Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶33

/True Copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing

¶37

Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Thalamuthu Natarajar Building, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Konam, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. + 9 ccs TO Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy , Advocate in SR No. 56518 + 9 ccs TO Mr.B.Jameel Arasu , Advocate in SR No. 56409 to 56417 + 1 cc TO The Special Government Pleader in SR No. 56548 sms AE/JC/SAR1/11.04.2018/3P/23C

¶38

Writ Petition (MD) Nos.5683 to 5691 of 2018 19.03.2018

¶39

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

C.Manikandaprabu, v. the Tamil Nadu State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Manikandaprabu, 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.Sivajothi, Vs the Principal Secretary to

K.Ravikumar, Vs the Secretary to Govt

I.Parvathi, W/O.Maharajan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

B.Sivakami Vs Teachers Recruitment Board

T.Shyamala Devi Vs Deputy Inspector General of

S. Shanmugalakshmi, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu