Allowed

Murugesan v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Jun 2019WP/15373/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the court under Article 226 seeking directions to dispose of his application for a vending license and to refrain from interference with his existing shop. The court directed the respondent committee to decide the matter within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2018 and pass orders within six weeks. Writ petition disposed of.

Murugesan Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.06.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.15373 of 2019

¶7

Murugesan ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003. 2.The Chair Person, Zone-XIII Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 034. ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2018, including vending committee constituted by the 1^st respondent for grant of licence to run the petty shop and till such time, forbear the 1^st respondent from in any manner interfering with the running of petitioner's bunk shop at Velacherry Bypass road by the side of and corner of Rajalakashmi Nagar, Ward No.178, near by Reymonds Showroom, Velacherry, Chennai-600 042, selling tea, coffee and allied foods.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.A.Sadique For Respondents : Ms.Karthicka Ashok

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2018, including vending committee constituted by the 1^st respondent for grant of licence to run the petty shop continuously and till such time, forbear the 1^st respondent from in any manner interfering with the running of petitioner's bunk shop at Velacherry.

¶14

According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Chennai and completed his school education. Since he is not able to get any job, he decided to run petty bunk shop by selling tea, coffee and allied foods. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in order to streamline the street vendors passed an order on the basis of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending Act, 2014 and based on the said Act, the Vending Committee was constituted for considering the grievance of the street vendors. In view of the same, the petitioner had made a representation to the 2^nd Respondent / Street Vending Committee, however, till date, the Street Vending Committee has not considered his request, against which, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶18

that it would suffice for this Court to issue a direction to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.12.2018.

¶19

The Learned counsel for the respondent would concede the

¶20

request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.12.2018 and pass orders on merits in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶23

06.06.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

¶24

rri/ssd

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

M.DHANDAPANI, J. rri/ssd

¶28

¶29

1.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.

¶30

2.The Chair Person,

¶31

Zone-XIII Street Vending Committee, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-600 034.

¶32

W.P.No.15373 of 2019

¶33

06.06.2019

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

Murugesan v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugesan v. The Commissioner

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

M/S. Tarsem Singh Vs the Supdt. Engineer,/Cedc /

R. Vandhana Shree Vs the Principal

M/S J.R. Smelters (P) Ltd. Vs the Chairman

St. Johns Nursery and Primary School, Vs The Director of School Education

N.Abraham Chandy Vs Secretary to the Govt. of India

Gautam H Shah Vs the Senior Accounts Officer