Partly allowed

G.Sudhakar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC23 Sept 2020WP/13196/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction under Article 226 for the Salem Corporation to conduct an enquiry into fee disputes between him and market associations. The Court directed the Corporation to consider the representation, issue notices, and decide within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the representation, issue notices to interested parties, and decide within four weeks.

G.Sudhakar Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.09.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.13196 of 2020

¶6

G. Sudhakar ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1. The Commissioner, Salem Corporation, Salem District. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Sooramangalam Ward Office, Municipal Corporation, Solampallam, Salem District 636 005. 3. Mr. Sheikh Abdullah President Vegetable Merchants Association, V Ramalingam Market, (Pal Market), Shevapet, Salem 636 002. 4. Mr. Sureshkumar, Secretary Vegetable Merchants Association, V.Ramalingam Market, (Pal Market) Shevapet, Salem 636 002. 5. Mr. Anand, Deputy Secretary Vegetable Merchants Association, V.Ramalingam Market, (Pal Market) Shevapet, Salem 636 002. 6. Mr.Ravi, Joint Secretary, Vegetable Merchants Association, V.Ramalingam Market, (Pal Market) Shevapet, Salem 636 002. 7. Mr. Thangavel, President, Tomato Merchants Association, V.Ramalingam Market, (Pal Market) Shevapet, Salem 636 002. ...Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquriy against the respondents 3 to 7 and to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner representation dated 24.08.2020 in the light of the resolution No.260 dated 29.12.2015 (clause 60) passed by the first respondent .

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.A.M. Esakkiappan

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.S. Sathish

¶12

Standing counsel for R1 and R2

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry on the representation made by the petitioner on 24.08.2020 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

The case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent invited tender for collection of fees in the daily market. The petitioner was the successful bidder and the tender was issued in his favour by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 31.3.2020. The petitioner is the license holder for the collection of the daily fee in the daily market.

¶16

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons belonging to a particular Association are not paying the amount fixed based on some resolution passed by the Association. The 1^st respondent is the authority who has to resolve this dispute. The petitioner made a representation to the 1^st respondent on 24.08.2020 in this regard. Since the same was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶17

Heard Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S. Sathish, learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶18

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and also clause 60 of Resolution No.260, dated 29.12.2015, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to immediately consider the representation made by the petitioner on 24.08.2020 by issuing notice to the other interested parties and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the 1^st respondent along with all the other relevant documents and a copy of this order.

¶19

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

¶20

This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner,
Salem Corporation, Salem District.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Sooramangalam Ward Office,
Municipal Corporation, Solampallam,
Salem District 636 005.
+1cc to M/s.A.Esakkiappan, Advocate in SR.NO..31230
W.P.No.13196 of 2020
CP(CO)
RV(13/10/2020)

¶25

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

G.Sudhakar v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sudhakar 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

Dr.v.Sahana Shruthi, Vs The Union of India

Divya Mary Elias Vs The Government of India

Dr.Relve P.Verghese Vs TamilNdau Medical Council

Ellappa, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Radhakrishnan Vs The sub Registrar Neelankarai

S.Varatharajan Vs The District Registrar