Dismissed

K.Veerappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC14 Feb 2020WP/20295/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of permission for a tea stall in Tiruvallur Government Hospital. The Court upheld the respondent's decision, citing site-specific rules and the existence of an existing facility, but granted liberty for a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to make a fresh representation considering the petitioner's visual impairment.

K.Veerappan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P. No.20295 of 2012

¶6

K.Veerappan ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director, Health and Rural Development, No.359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶7

The Assistant Director, Health Department, Thiruvallur. .... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records in the order bearing No.O.Mu.No.17128/thiva1/5/2012, dated 30.3.2012 passed by respondent No.2 and quashing the same, and directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 20.01.2012 of the petitioner in accordance with law for grant of permission to run a tea-stall in Tiruvallur Government Hospital Complex.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan

¶10

For respondents : Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari

¶11

Additional Government Pleader R1 to R3

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the request made by the petitioner for grant of permission to run a Tea stall in lieu of the telephone booth, which he was occupying, earlier.

¶15

According to the petitioner, originally he was accorded permission to run a telephone booth in Tiruvallur Government Hospital, and a space was allotted by the second respondent. It is his case that he was operating the same for almost three years. Thereafter, due to the advent of the cellular phones, the said telephone booth was closed in the year 2007. Subsequently, he made a request in his representation dated 20.01.2012 to the second respondent requesting for allotment of a space for the purpose of running a Tea shop. By the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, the second respondent rejected the request on the ground that there is a Tea shop existing in the same campus. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed.

¶16

Heard Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Bhuvaneswari, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents.

¶17

The learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents drew the attention of this Court to paragraphs Nos. 6 and 7 of their counter affidavit, wherein, G.O. Ms.No.59, dated 20.03.2003 has been referred to. According to her, as per the said G.O., space can be allotted only for a telephone booth and Aavin milk parlour, but there is no provision to grant new tea stall to the petitioner. Further, the claim of the petitioner is that similarly placed persons as that of the petitioner was allotted a space at Thanjavur Government Medical College Hospital premises for running a Tea stall. According to her, that was in a different locality, whereas, the petitioner is seeking for a space at Tiruvallur Government Hospital, where there was no place to run the Tea stall. It is their case that allotment of space depends on the locality and the requirements for the said locality. According to her, the respondents have duly considered the request made by the petitioner and have rightly rejected the said request.

¶18

This Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Accordingly, there is no merit in this writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation, considering the fact that the petitioner is a

¶19

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

¶20

visually challenged person seeking for an allotment of a space in and around Tiruvallur with the respondents. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-I)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi2
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Director,
Health and Rural Development,
No.359, Anna Salai,
DMS Complex,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
3. The Assistant Director,
Health Department,
Thiruvallur.
+1cc to Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, Advocate SR.No.12296
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.13083
W.P. No.20295 of 2012
NMI(CO)
GMY(16/03/2020)

¶22

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

K.Veerappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Veerappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

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/S.Trans Asian Shipping Vs the Chairman

V.Rathinachinnaiah Vs the Commissioner of Sugar

T.S.Dhakshinamurthy Vs the Director General of

M.B.Subramanian Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

M/S.Karunya Enterprises, Vs the District Collector

N.Chinnadurai, Vs the Secretary to the