Remanded

Manikandan v. The District Collector

Madras HC26 Jul 2021WP/15299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ to prevent the setting up of a TASMAC shop with an attached bar near educational institutions and places of worship. The Court directed the District Collector to examine the representation and pass a reasoned order with an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks, without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it by a reasoned order within eight weeks providing an opportunity of hearing.

Manikandan Vs The District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.15299 of 2021

¶8

Manikandan .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶11

The Managing Director, Tasmac Limited, CMDA Tower – II, Egmore, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

The District Manager, Tasmac Limited, SIDCO Complex, Orikkai, Kancheepuram – 631 502, Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from establishing or re-locating the TASMAC shop attached with Bar No.4001 at S.No.87B, Vanigar Street, Town S.No.529/4, Kancheepuram District or its adjoining area.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Counsel for the State for respondent No.1

¶15

Mr.P.Arumugarajan Standing Counsel (TASMAC) for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)

¶19

The petitioner seeks to prevent the setting up of a TASMAC shop at S.No.87B, Town S.No.529/4 at Vanigar Street, Kancheepuram District.

¶20

The petitioner states that the second and third respondents are proposing to set up a TASMAC shop with an attached bar at the aforementioned location. The petitioner alleges that if the shop is set up at the proposed location, it would be within the prohibited distance from educational institutions and places of worship. In spite of submitting a representation dated 19.06.2021 in this regard, it is stated that no action has been taken.

¶21

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and states that the District Collector is the appropriate authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation.

¶22

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the first respondent – District Collector, Kancheepuram is directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.06.2021 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order by examining whether the proposed TASMAC shop would violate the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In shops and bars) Rules, 2003. Such reasoned order shall be passed after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner and any other persons affected by such order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

W.P.No.15299 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.16189 of 2021 is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

bbr

¶29

To:

¶30

The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

¶31

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

¶32

The Managing Director, Tasmac Limited, CMDA Tower – II, Egmore, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

The District Manager, Tasmac Limited, SIDCO Complex, Orikkai, Kancheepuram – 631 502, Kancheepuram District.

¶34

W.P.No.15299 of 2021

¶35

KV(CO) BE(29/07/2021)

¶36

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

Manikandan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan v. The District Collector

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

K.Nagarajan Vs The Chief Secretary

K.Gokulakannan Vs J.Janorious Fausta

K.Adhimoolam Vs The District Collector

Next Radio Limited Vs Union of India

K.R.Ramaswamy Vs Harmendra Sing

M. Vellingiri Vs the Authorized Officer