Disposed

Shiny v. The Superintendent of Police

Madras HC20 Jan 2021WP/20475/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the petitioner to apply for a Spa License in the specified format within two weeks upon receipt of the order. The respondent was directed to consider the application and pass final orders within four weeks, ensuring no disturbance of the petitioner's possession meanwhile. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply for Spa License within two weeks; Respondent to consider application and pass final orders within four weeks.

Shiny Vs The Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.01.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P. No.20475 of 2020 and WMP No.25252 of 2020

¶6

Shiny ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

¶9

The Inspector of Police Hudco Police Station Hosur, Krishnagiri District. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent to issue a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to run a “SPA” i.e., cross massage in the name and style of “DREAMS WELLNESS CENTER & SPA” at Door No.2, T.N.H.B. Colony, Hudco Bagalur Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri by pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2020.

¶11

For petitioner ... Mr.S.Leonard Vasanth For respondents ... Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar Special Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus seeking for a direction to the second respondent to issue No Objection Certificate to the petitioner to run a Spa i.e. cross massage in the name and style of “DREAMS WELLNESS CENTER & SPA” at Door No.2, T.N.H.B. Colony, Hudco Bagalur Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri, based on the petitioner's representation dated 15.12.2020.

¶14

By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶15

Heard Mr.S.Leonard Vasanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶16

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

¶17

Mr.V.Shanmuga Sundar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that unless and until the petitioner applies for Spa license in accordance with the specified format under the statute, the first respondent will not be able to process the same.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is willing to apply for Spa Licence in accordance with the specified format.

¶19

After recording the submissions made by the respective learned counsels, this Court directs the petitioner to apply for Spa License for his Spa at Door No.2, T.N.H.B. Colony, Hudco Bagalur Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri, as per the specified format within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said application in the specified format, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, thereafter. In the meanwhile, it is made clear that the respondents shall not disturb the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of his Spa.

¶20

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands

¶21

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

nl Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Superintendent of Police Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. 2. The Inspector of Police Hudco Police Station Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶25

W.P. No.20475 of 2020 ssi(CO) rv(10/02/2021)

¶26

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

Shiny v. The Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiny v. The Superintendent of Police

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

M/s.v.Sinraju Constructions Vs Tender Inviting Authority cum

K.Gaja Vs The District Collector

Senthilkumar Mani Vs The District Collector

Mr.H.Ramakrishnan, Vs The Secretary to Government

K.P.Mohan, Vs The Revenue Divisional

D.Mercy Leyal Vs Registrar of Companies