Dismissed

M/S.Vinayaga Traders, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC28 Mar 2019WMP(MD)/5866/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous petition challenging a stay on a notice, the Madurai Bench held that since the petitioner did not challenge the notice in the main writ petition praying for cancellation, the prayer to stay it was not maintainable. The miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Stay on notice was declined as the notice was not challenged in the main writ petition; miscellaneous petition dismissed.

M/S.Vinayaga Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Special Original Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

WMP(MD) No.5866 of 2019 IN WP(MD) No.7354 of 2019

¶7

M/S.VINAYAGA TRADERS, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR,

¶8

A.SENTHIL KUMAR ... PETITIONER

¶9

¶10

1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶11

MADURAI CORPORATION,

¶12

ZONAL NO.4, MADURAI.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, TAMILNADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

¶14

KAPPALUR, MADURAI. ... RESPONDENS

¶15

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to stay all the further proceeding on the basis of the notice dated 05/03/2019 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the WP.

¶16

Prayer in WP(MD).7354/2019 :

¶17

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 13/03/2019 and consequently cancel the notice dated 05/03/2019 issued by the 1st respondent.

¶18

ORDER: This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.K.M.PRISCILLA JANCY, Advocate for the petitioner

¶19

¶20

and of MR.G.PRABHU RAMACHANDRAN, Advocate for R1, and MR.VASANTHA KUMAR, Advocate for R2, the court made the following order:-

¶21

The petitioner is not challenged the notice dated 05.03.2019. The main writ petition only for Writ of Mandamus. Therefore, the question of praying to stay notice which has not been challenged in the main writ petition, does not write. Hence, the miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶22

sd/-

¶23

28/03/2019

¶24

/ TRUE COPY /

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶26

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶27

Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

¶29

1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADURAI CORPORATION, ZONAL NO.4, MADURAI.

¶30

2 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, TAMILNADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KAPPALUR, MADURAI.

¶31

ORDER IN WMP(MD) No.5866 of 2019 IN

¶32

WP(MD) No.7354 of 2019

¶33

Date :28/03/2019

¶34

vsg PK/JC/SAR-4/02.04.2019 : 2P/3C

¶35

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

M/S.Vinayaga Traders, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Vinayaga Traders, v. the Assistant Commissioner

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.Kavery Ammal Vs the Tahsildar

S.Rengaraj, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Reehana Hasmath Vs the Registrar

J. Amaravathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Chinnadurai, Vs the District Collector

A.Anandha Prakash, Vs the Commissioner of Technical