M.Balaraja v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (Tasmac)

Madras HC25 Oct 2021WP/22236/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four petitioners sought a writ directing TASMAC to extend bar license periods affected by the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court disposed of the petitions by directing the First Respondent to consider the petitioners' representations on their merits and communicate the decision within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to dispose of representations dated 27.08.2021 and communicate the decision within three weeks.

M.Balaraja Vs The Tamil Nadu State Marketing… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25.10.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.Nos.22236, 22238, 22242 and 22244 of 2021

¶6

M.Balaraja, Shop No.8799, Door No.27, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kumaran Nagar, Padi, Chennai 600 050.

¶7

...Petitioner in W.P.No.22236 of 2021

¶8

V.Sendoorapandy, Shop No.8903, Door No.52/186, Red Hills Road, Pudur, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

¶9

... Petitioner in W.P.No.22238 of 2021

¶10

V.Selvam, Shop No.446, Door No.106, McNichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.

¶11

... Petitioner in W.P.No.22242 of 2021

¶12

N.Udayappa, Shop No.9069, Door Nos.288 & 114, Trunk Road, Poonamallee, Chennai-600056.

¶13

...Petitioner in W.P.No.22244 of 2021

¶14

-Vs.-

¶15

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC) Rep.by its Managing Director, “Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai”, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore,

¶16

Chennai-600 008.

¶17

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

¶18

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), Rep.by its Senior Regional Manager, LLA Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶19

... 1^st & 2^nd Respondents in all W.P.s

¶20

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), Rep. by its District Manager, Thiruvallur (East) District, No.1, Banglore Highway, Sembarambakkam, Chennai 602 103, Thiruvallur District.

¶21

... 3^rd Respondent

¶22

in W.P.Nos.22236, 22238 & 22244 of 2021

¶23

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), Rep.by its District Manager, Chennai (Central), District, No.B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.

¶24

...3rd Respondent in W.P.No.22242 of 2021

¶25

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to forthwith extend the Bar license period of the petitioner for TASMAC Shop Nos.8799, 8903, 446 and 9069 respectively corresponding to the closure period due to COVID 19 pandemic, by considering and passing necessary orders on the representations of the Petitioners dated 27.08.2021 respectively.

¶26

For Petitioner in all W.P.s : Mr.K.Selvaraj

¶27

For Respondents in all W.P.s : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar standing counsel for TASMAC

¶28

This common order will govern all the captioned four writ petitions.

¶29

Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for writ petitioners in all four writ petitions are before this virtual Court. Learned counsel submits that there are four different writ petitioners,

¶30

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

¶31

but the issue is same. Learned counsel submits that the writ petitioners were given two years license (from 2019 to 2021) for selling short eats and collecting empty bottles from Bars attached to four different retail liquor outlets run by 'Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited' ['TASMAC'], but in 2019-2021 period, Corona virus pandemic and consequent lock down which is collectively referred to as 'COVID 19 situation', which the writ petitioner could neither portend nor presage, intervened. Learned counsel for writ petitioners submits that there was lock down and therefore, writ petitioners could not have the benefit of entire two years period.

¶32

Notwithstanding the expansive prayer in all the four writ petitions, learned counsel, on instructions, abridges the prayer and restricts the prayer to a simple Mandamus to dispose of representations all dated 27.08.2021 made by each of the four writ petitioners. The details are as follows:

¶33

S.No	Shop No./Retail Outlet No.	Name of Writ Petitioner W	.P.Nos
1	8799	M.Balaraja 22236	of 2021
2	8903	V.Sendoorapandy 22238	of 2021
3	446	V.Selvam 22242	of 2021
4	9069	N.Udayappa 22244	of 2021

¶34

Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned standing counsel for TASMAC, accepts notice on behalf of all the 3 respondents in all the four writ petitions. On instructions, learned standing counsel submits that no fee was collected from the writ petitioners during the lock down period.

¶35

However, owing to the extremely limited abridged/restricted prayer writ petitioners are now making, this Court deems it appropriate to accede to the limited abridged prayer.

¶36

Before this Court proceeds further, it is deemed appropriate to extract and reproduce four representations that has been placed before Court (as part of the common typed set of papers). The four representations are as follows:

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Captioned four writ petitions are disposed of with a directive to first respondent to consider and dispose of all the four writ petitioners' representations (all dated 27.08.2021) on its own merits, in accordance with law as expeditiously as the business of the first respondent would permit and in any event, within three weeks from today i.e., on or before 15.11.2021.

¶43

Proceedings/orders disposing all the aforementioned four representations of the four writ petitioners shall be communicated to the respective writ petitioners under due acknowledgment within five working days from the dates of disposal of the representations. Though obvious, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merits of the matter and the first respondent shall consider the representations on their own merits and in accordance with law.

¶44

Captioned four Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid manner by this common order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶46

//True Copy//

¶47

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶48

nsa/mk

¶49

¶50

Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC) “Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai”, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore,

¶51

Chennai-600 008.

¶52

Senior Regional Manager,

¶53

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), LLA Building, Anna Salai,

¶54

Chennai-600 002.

¶55

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

¶56

District Manager,

¶57

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), Thiruvallur (East) District,

¶58

No.1, Banglore Highway,

¶59

Sembarambakkam, Chennai 602 103, Thiruvallur District.

¶60

District Manager,

¶61

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), Chennai (Central), District, No.B-4, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058.

¶62

+4ccs to M/s.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.54504

¶63

W.P.Nos.22236, 22238, 22242 and 22244 of 2021

¶64

KSM(CO) SU(22/11/2021)

¶65

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

M.Balaraja v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (Tasmac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Balaraja v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., (Tasmac)

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

Tvl.Eih Limtied-Unit - Oberoi Flight Services Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Eureka Systems and Electrodes (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Eureka Systems and Electrodes (P) Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Anuradha Vs The Income Tax Officer (ward 1)

Anuradha Vs The Income Tax Officer (ward 1)

Shree Vasavi Jwellery Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax