Dismissed

T.S.Vinayagam v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Jul 2019WP/14613/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the proposed location of an IMFL shop without a hearing. The petitioners contended that objections raised in representations of 2019 were not answered. The court found that, as of the date of judgment, there was no proposal to locate such a shop in the specified areas. Consequently, the petition was held to be premature and d

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as premature as there is no proposal to locate an IMFL shop in the specified areas.

T.S.Vinayagam Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 9/7/2019

¶3

C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶4

Writ Petition No.14613 of 2019
a n d
W.M.P.No.14618 of 2019
T.S.Vinayagam ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Collector
Vellore District.
2. The General Manager
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd
(TASMAC)
Vellore District.
3. The Tahsildar
Gudiyattam Taluk
Vellore District. ... Respondents
Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing
the respondents and their officials from in any way opening a
wine shop in New Park Town, Annamalai Nagar and Gandhi Nagar of
Kondasamudram Union, Gudiyattam Taluk, without hearing and
considering the objections of the residents of the above said
area by giving opportunity to them in pursuance to the
petitioner's representation, dated 26/1/2019, 8/4/2019 and
28/4/2019.

¶5

For petitioners ... Mr.K.A.Ravindran
For respondents ... Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali
Government Advocate
for R.1 and R.3
Mr.P.Arumugarajan
Standing Counsel for TASMAC
- R.2.

¶6

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

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

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

¶9

Apprehending that location of a shop, at New Park Town, Annamalai Nagar and Gandhi Nagar of Kondasamudram Union, Gudiyattam Taluk, would cause nuisance to the residents, petitioner is stated to have made representations, dated 26/1/2019, 8/4/2019 and 28/4/2019, respectively. Contending inter alia that the representations, have not been answered, instant writ petition has been filed.

¶10

2. On instructions, Mr.P.Arumugarajan, learned Standing Counsel for TASMAC/second respondent submitted that as on date, there is no proposal to locate IMFL shop, in the subject areas, mentioned in the representations of the writ petitioner. Submission is placed on record.

¶11

3. As on today, there is no proposal to locate any IMFL shop, in the areas mentioned. Therefore, instant writ petition is premature and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Vellore District. 2. The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Vellore District.

¶12

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

¶13

3. The Tahsildar Gudiyattam Taluk Vellore District.

¶14

+1cc to Mr.K.A.Ravindran, Advocate sr.57573 +1cc to Mr.P.Arumugarajan, Advocate Sr.57431

¶15

Writ Petition No.14613 of 2019
skv[co]
srg 29/07/2019

¶16

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

T.S.Vinayagam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Vinayagam 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

V.Kanthimathi Vs The District Collector

Uthayakumar Vs K.Ramamoorthy

R.Jeyakumar Vs P.Philip Prabakar

C.Suresh Vs The District Collector

M.David, S/o.Munusami, Vs The District Collecor

S.M.Vetrivel Vs Government of Tamil Nadu