The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of two writ petitions filed by licensees of Aavin retail outlets, who challenged the cancellation of their licenses. The court relieved itself of judgment since the respondent posted counsel withdrew the cancellation orders.
Writ petitions disposed of; connected miscellaneous petitions closed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)Nos.8453 & 8462 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.8453 & 8462 of 2020 and WMP(MD) Nos.7840 & 7846 of 2020
M.Ayyanar M.Ponnusamy
...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8453/2020 ...Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8462/2020
Vs.
The General Manager, Vnr-1000 Virudhunagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd, Srivilliputhur – 626 125 Virudhunagar District ...Respondent in both Writ Petitions
COMMON PRAYER: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned orders of cancellation of location allotted to the petitioners in Km 43/4 of Madurai to Kanniyakumari road near LIC office in Virudhunagar Town and Km 0/2 of Fathima Nagar Road, near Veilukuhanthamman Kovil in Virudhunagar Town, for erection of Aavin Booth in Na.Ka.No.496/Mkg-Agent/2019 and Na.Ka.No.497/Mkg-Agent/2019 dated 17.07.2020 respectively and quash the same and further direct the respondent to continue the supply of Aavin Milk and other Aavin products to the petitioners subject to the terms stated in Aavin Agency appointment orders in Na.Ka.No.496/Mkg/Agent/2019 and Na.Ka.No.496/Mkg/Agent/2019 dated 04.06.2020.
For Petitioner (in both WPs) : Ms.S.Mahalakshmi For Respondent (in both WPs) : Mr.E.Marees Kumar
C O M M O N O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2.The petitioners have been allotted license to install Aavin retail outlet in the petition mentioned sites. the petitioners were given such licenses only after they were found successful in the tender process. The petitioners have also obtained No Objection Certificates from the concerned departments. The petitioners have also spent sizeable sum of money for creating
1/2
W.P.(MD)Nos.8453 & 8462 of 2020
necessary infrastructure. While so, in the order impugned in the Writ Petition, no specific reason has been assigned for cancellation of what was already issued to them. The impugned order is also not preceded by any notice. Therefore I find considerable merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Assistant Registrar(AD-II)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
vrn
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The General Manager, Vnr-1000 Virudhunagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd, Srivilliputhur – 626 125 Virudhunagar District
Common order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.8453 & 8462 of 2020 and WMP(MD) Nos.7840 & 7846 of 2020 03.08.2020
db(CO) TR(17.08.2020) 2P 2C
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders cancelling the Aavin Booth location licenses were valid in the absence of stated reasons and a preceding notice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Ayyanar M. Ponnusamy
The General Manager, Vnr-1000 Virudhunagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd
G.R. Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
