Disposed

N.Selvam v. The Collector

Madras HC5 Oct 2021WP/21385/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued regarding alleged parking space shortages at a petitioner club. Relying on the respondent counsel's submission that the notice was interlocutory, the Court held no further orders were needed beyond recording the submissions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of by recording submissions; no orders quashing the notice or directing permission to function are passed.

N.Selvam Vs The Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

¶5

W.P. No. 21385 of 2021 and W.M.P. No. 22630 of 2021

¶6

N. Selvam ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶10

Prohibition and Excise Department, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur 641 601. ... Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.17068/2021/kalal-2 dated 17.09.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner club to function based on the permission already granted in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Loganathan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, learned Government Counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶16

2.The relief sought in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.17068/2021/Kalal-2 dated 17.09.2021, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner's club to function based on the

¶17

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

¶18

permissions already granted in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.

¶19

3.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a secretary of Royal Health and Social Welfare Club, which was established in the year 2013, after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities. The petitioner's club is running after following due procedure and without any complaint from the public. While so, on 19.09.2021, without conducting any inspection, the first respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner's club to explain as to why it should not be provided sufficient parking space in the club premises. According to the petitioner, the club is having adequate parking area in the entire ground floor separately for two wheeler covering 1243 sq.ft. as well as car parking to an extent of 1960 sq.ft. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner sent a detailed explanation on 24.09.2021 to the first respondent. When the things stood thus, the respondents are now attempting to evict the club illegally based on the complaint lodged by one Selvaraj, MLA of Tiruppur (South). Hence, apprehending dispossession, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

¶20

4.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after obtaining all necessary permissions from the authorities concerned, the petitioner's club is carrying on the activities without any violations and they are not encroaching upon the area or street, locality adjoining or abutting any canals and hence, the respondents ought not to have issued the notice impugned herein. It is also submitted that the petitioner's club is having sufficient parking space at ground floor for two wheelers and cars separately, however, without verifying the said fact, the first respondent issued the impugned notice and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶21

5.On the other hand, the learned Government Counsel taking notice for the respondents, fairly submitted that what was impugned in this writ petition is only a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner's club to submit its explanation for the alleged shortage of parking space in the club premises. In response to the same, the petitioner's club already submitted its explanation. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities would consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities would take action only after following due process of law.

¶22

6.In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Government counsel appearing for the respondents, this court is of the opinion that no further orders need be passed in this

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

dhk To

¶29

The Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur. 2. The Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur 641 601.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.M.Loganathan, Advocate Sr.52497 +1cc to the Government pleader Sr.52433

¶31

WP No. 21385 of 2021

¶32

gpl[co] srg 11/11/2021

¶33

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

N.Selvam v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Selvam v. The Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Manuel Raj Vs the Tahsildar

S.Chenniappan Vs District Collector

Mrf Ltd. Vs The Competition

N. Gopikrishnan Vs The District Collector

P.Sundaram, Vs The District Collector

R.Parameswari Vs The District collector