Dismissed

C.Kathiresan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Oct 2019WA/3244/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal against an order mandating an appellant to vacate a shop in Nagapattinam Government Hospital for building expansion, the Court upheld the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition. The Bench confirmed the lower court's order citing public interest and public health concerns.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the impugned order is confirmed. No costs awarded.

C.Kathiresan Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.10.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶7

W.A.No.3244 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.20505 of 2019

¶8

C.Kathiresan

¶9

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary,

¶13

Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George,

¶14

Chennai - 600 009.

¶15

2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health, Chennai - 600 006. ...Respondents/Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 30.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.30805 of 2007 on the file of this Court.

¶17

W.P.No.30805/2007:

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second Respondent ini Na.Ka.No. 21443/Teva 1/ 3/2007 dated 3.9.2007 and quash the same direct the second Respondent herein to permit the petitioner herein to sell aavin products in his nassey bunk shell run at Government General Hospital at Nagapattinam pursuant to recommendation made by joint Director Medical and Rural Health Services Nagapattinam as per letter dated 9.3.2007 sent to the second Respondent herein.

¶19

For Appellant : Mr.K.M.Venugopal

¶20

For Respondents: Mr.J.Pothiraj, Special

¶21

Government Pleader.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

(Order of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J)

¶24

The appeal has been preferred by the allottee to run NAESEY bunk stall at Government Hospital, Nagapattinam pursuant to the permission granted by the respondent herein on 09.03.2007 to run the said shop for the period from 2006-2007.

¶25

2.The appellant has been running the business and thereafter, by virtue of the order dated 03.09.2007, the appellant was directed to vacate the premises as the land was required for expansion of the hospital buildings. The said order was challenged before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the land is required for expansion of hospital buildings. Moreover, the learned Single Judge also observed that the appellant was running the shop in an un-hygienic manner.

¶26

3.The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is depending on the income generated from the shop for his livelihood right from the year 2007 onwards and therefore prayed that at the least an alternate site should be provided to him and produced photographs of the appellant's shop which has been sealed.

¶27

4.A perusal of the records especially the impugned order dated 03.09.2007 would reveal that the appellant was running the shop in an un-hygienic manner. That apart, for expansion of buildings by putting up new construction in the hospital campus, the area in which the shop was occupied by the appellant is required. Once decision has been taken for construction of new building and when it is found that the appellant is selling the products in an un-hygienic manner, it is not in the interest of the public to permit the appellant to run the business.

¶28

5.Further, it is seen that permission has been granted from the year 2006-2007 and for more than a decade, interim order was enjoyed by the appellant for twelve times of the period granted, even though license had been given for one year. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant.

¶29

6.Further, in the interest of patients, new building is sought to be erected and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with and the same is confirmed. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

-s/d-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶32

True Copy

¶33

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,

¶36

Rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶37

2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health, Chennai - 600 006.

¶38

+1 CC to Mr.K.M.Venugopal, Advocate sr 87042. +1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 87379.

¶39

W.A.No.3244 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.20505 of 2019

¶40

BS(CO) SP(19/11/2019)

C.Kathiresan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kathiresan v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

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

The Secretary to Government Vs Yenetala Madhu Preethi

The Secretary to Government Vs L.Gurunathan

The Secretary of Government Vs P.Kishore Kumar

Sennimalai Gounder Vs the Tahsildar

R.Kannan Vs M.Packiam(Decd.,)

United India Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Rama Subbaiah