Disposed

Murugan v. The Designated Officer

Madras HC28 Feb 2020WP/5179/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to respondents to dispose of a representation regarding a tea shop selling alcohol at night. The Court directed respondents to act by a fixed date and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to dispose of the representation dated 19.02.2020 and issue notices to parties on or before 20.03.2020.

Murugan Vs The Designated Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.02.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶5

W.P.No.5179 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.6117 of 2020

Murugan

..Petitioner

vs.

1.The Designated Officer,

¶10

Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, (Food Safety Wing),

¶11

No.33, West Jones Road,

¶12

Saidapet West, Chennai – 600015.

¶13

2.The Commissioner,

¶14

The Chennai Corporation,

¶15

Rippon Building, 1^st Floor,

¶16

Raja Muthiah Road,

¶17

Kannappar Thidal, Periyampet,

Chennai – 600003.

3.VP.K.Kutty

.. Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 19.02.2020 with regard to regulate the 3^rd respondent had conduct a tea shop within a purview of rental agreement within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶22

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Saravana Kumar

¶23

For Respondents:Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi

¶24

Additional Government Pleader [R1] Mrs.B.Manimegalai [R2]

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent, for whom the shop was given to run a tea shop is selling alcohol in the night time. The petitioner did not know what to do except giving a complaint in the police station. He approached this Court by way of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of Mandamus, seeking direction with the first respondent to dispose of his representation dated 19.02.2020.

¶28

In the representation dated 19.02.2020, the petitioner has sought action to be taken against third respondent for selling alcohol in a tea shop during the night time.

¶29

Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the 1^st respondent and Mr.B.Manimegalai, learned counsel appears for the 2^nd respondent. The respondents are directed to dispose of the representation on or before 20.03.2020. The respondent may issue notice to the petitioner enquire with him and also issue notice to the third respondent and also pass orders on or before 20.03.2020.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Assistant Registrar

¶32

// True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

Pns

¶35

¶36

1.The Designated Officer,

¶37

Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, (Food Safety Wing),

¶38

No.33, West Jones Road,

¶39

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

¶40

Saidapet West, Chennai – 600015.

¶41

2.The Commissioner, The Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, 1^st Floor, Raja Muthiah Road, Kannappar Thidal, Periyampet, Chennai – 600003.

¶42

+1cc to Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.17457 +1cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.18749

¶43

W.P.No.5179 of 2020

¶44

SR(CO) GS(22/05/2020)

¶45

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

Murugan v. The Designated Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan v. The Designated Officer

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

R.Srinivasan Vs The Superintendent of Police

D.v.Anandhasayanam, Vs The District Collector

N.v.Chennan, Vs The Commissioner

Mr.K.Boopalan Vs Additional Chief Secy. to Govt

K. R. Selvakumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Coimbatore Corporation Contractors Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its