Disposed

G.Govindaraj v. The Director

Madras HC13 Sept 2021WP/19186/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the Director of Medical Education to consider the petitioner's representation for renewing his Aavin milk parlour licence. The High Court did not examine merits but directed the respondent to consider the representation, pass orders, and afford a hearing opportunity within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.07.2021, pass appropriate orders on merits, and afford a hearing opportunity within four weeks.

G.Govindaraj Vs The Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. NO. 19186 OF 2021

¶6

G. Govindaraj

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The Director
 The Directorate of Medical and Rural
 and Rural Health Services
 DMS, Tenampet
 Chennai - 600 006.

¶10

2. The Director
 Directorate of Medical Education
 Kilpak, Chennai - 600 010.

¶11

3. The Joint Director of Health Services Tirupur. 4. The Dean and Special Officer Government Medical College and Hospital Tirupur.

¶12

5. The Executive Engineer
 PWD Building (C & M)
 Divisional Medical Work
 Kumar Nagar, Tirupur – 1.

¶13

 .. Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the
second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation
dated 19.07.2021 and to grant permission/renew to run the Aavin
Booth in the fourth respondent's premises

¶15

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

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.Stalin Abhimanyu
 Government Counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ
of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the
petitioner's representation dated 19.07.2021 and to grant him
permission/renew the licence to run the Aavin Booth in the
fourth respondent's premises.

¶19

2. It is claimed that the petitioner is a physically
challenged person and running Aavin milk parlour within the
premises of the fourth respondent for the past 11 years. The
license issued in his favour was periodically renewed from time
to time upto 07.06.2022. As the petitioner's license is to be
renewed, he had been repeatedly making representation to the
second respondent to permit him to continuously run the Aavin
parlour inside the fourth respondent premises by renewing his
licence. While the petitioner was anticipating to get his
licence renewed, on 25.05.2021, the fourth respondent orally
directed him to temporarily stall the operation of the milk
parlour and the same was complied by him. On such compliance,
the petitioner sent another representation dated 19.07.2021 to
the second representation seeking to permit him to run the milk
parlour by renewing his licence. However, the representation
dated 19.07.2021 has not been considered by the second
respondent. While so, the fourth respondent sent a letter on
27.08.2021 to close the parlour until the second respondent
permits to run the parlour. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner
has come up with this writ petition.

¶20

3. Heard both sides. It is stated that the petitioner is
a physically challenged person and is running aavin milk parlour
within the premises of the fourth respondent for about 11 years.
The licence issued to him is valid upto 07.06.2022, however, as
per the direction of the respondents, he had closed the milk
parlour. Thereafter, he had sent representation seeking
permission to run the aavin milk parlour by renewing the
licence, but the same has not been considered.

¶21

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

¶22

4. Having regard to the above facts, this court,
without going into the merits of the case, directs the second
respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated
19.07.2021 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

// True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

dhk/rsh

¶29

To

¶30

1. The Director
 The Directorate of Medical and Rural
 and Rural Health Services
 DMS, Tenampet
 Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Director
 Directorate of Medical Education
 Kilpak, Chennai - 600 010.
3. The Joint Director of Health Services
 Tirupur.
4. The Dean and Special Officer
 Government Medical College and Hospital
 Tirupur.
5. The Executive Engineer
 PWD Building (C & M)
 Divisional Medical Work
 Kumar Nagar, Tirupur – 1.
+1cc to Mr.S.Nagarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.46051

¶31

W.P. No. 19186 of 2021

¶32

PVS(CO)
RLP(12/10/2021)

¶33

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

G.Govindaraj v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Govindaraj v. The Director

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

D.Umapathy Vs The District Collector

M.Haridass Vs The District Collector

S.Kandasamy Vs The Chief Engineer

Summit Digital Infrastructure Vs The District Collector

M/s. Greenway Clothing India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Managing Director

Chandrasekaran, Vs The Regional Director