Disposed

S.Sakthivel v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd. (Tasmac)

Madras HC27 Oct 2021WP/23053/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of four writ petitions filed under Article 226 praying for a direction to extend bar license periods for TASMAC wine shops closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representations on their merits within three weeks without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representations within three weeks, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.10.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR W.P.Nos.23053, 23055, 23056 and 23058 of 2021

¶4

S.Sakthivel, Shop No.4127, No.210, Aarthi Nagar, Agaram Main Road, Selaiyur, Kancheepuram District.

¶5

S.Sakthivel, Shop No.4137, Door No.25, Aarthi Nagar, Agaram Main Road, Selaiyur, Kancheepuram District.

¶6

...Petitioner in W.P.No.23053 of 2021 ...Petitioner in W.P.No.23055 of 2021

¶7

S.Sakthivel, Shop No.4323, Door No.10, Irumbuliyur, Abirami Nagar, West Tambaram, Kancheepuram District.

¶8

...Petitioner in W.P.No.23056 of 2021

¶9

S.Parthiban, Shop No.4035, Door No.10, Periyar Nagar, Kunrathur Main Road, Kancheepuram District.

¶10

...Petitioner in W.P.No.23058 of 2021 -Vs.-

¶11

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC), Rep.by its Managing Director, “Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai”, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶12

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

¶13

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing

¶14

Corporation Limited, (TASMAC), Rep.by its Senior Regional Manager, LLA Building, Anna Salai,

¶15

Chennai-600 002.

¶16

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing

¶17

Corporation Limited, (TASMAC), Rep.by its District Manager, Kancheepuram (North) Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai,

¶18

Kancheepuram District-600 123. ...Respondents in all W.P.s

¶19

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 the TASMAC wine shop Nos.4127, 4137, 4323 and 4035 respectively corresponding to the closure period due to COVID 19 Pandemic, by considering and passing necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 25.09.2021.

¶20

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

¶21

For Respondents in all W.P.s: Mr.K.Sathishkumar

¶22

standing counsel for Mr.P.Arumurugarajan standing counsel for TASMAC

¶23

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶24

Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for writ petitioners in captioned four writ petitions is before this Virtual Court.

¶25

Learned counsel submits that similar matters were disposed of by this Court in and by a common order dated 25.10.2021 made in four writ petitions being W.P.Nos.22236, 22238, 22242 and 22244 of 2021 which reads as follows:

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Learned counsel for writ petitioners, on instructions, submits that he restricts and abridges the prayer to a simple Mandamus to dispose of representations (all dated 25.09.2021) made by each of the four writ petitioners as done in the aforementioned four writ petitions and requests for a similar order. The details are as follows:

¶37

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

¶38

S.No
1.
2.

¶39

S.No	Shop No./Retail Outlet No.	Name of Writ Petitioner	W.P.Nos
1.	4127	S.Sakthivel	23053 of 2021
2.	4137	S.Sakthivel	23055 of 2021
3.	4323	S.Sakthivel	23056 of 2021
4.	4035	S.Parthiban	23058 of 2021

¶40

Mr.K.Sathishkumar, learned standing counsel for 'Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited' ['TASMAC'] representing Mr.P.Arumugarajan, learned standing counsel for respondents in all four writ petitions accepts notice.

¶41

Owing to the narrow compass on which captioned matters turn, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petitions are taken up.

¶42

Before this Court proceeds further, it is deemed appropriate to extract and reproduce the aforementioned four representations dated 25.09.2021 that have been placed before this Court (as part of the common typed set of papers). The four representations are as follows:

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Learned standing counsel for TASMAC points out that copies of representations do not contain signature of sender, but learned counsel for writ petitioners, on instructions, submits that the originals sent to the respective addressees are duly signed.

¶52

Be that as it may, learned counsel for writ petitioner affirms that the scanned reproduction of the above are the

¶53

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

¶54

representations. This is supported by sworn affidavits (writ affidavits). Therefore, it will be appropriate to direct the above representations to be disposed of.

¶55

There is no disputation or disagreement that similar writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide aforementioned common order dated 25.10.2021. Therefore, the captioned four writ petitions will also be disposed of by a similar common order.

¶56

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 25.09.2021) 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 17.11.2021.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶60

//True Copy//

¶61

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶62

¶63

¶64

The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC), “Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai”, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶65

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

¶66

The Senior Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC), LLA Building, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3. The District Manager, The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, (TASMAC), Kancheepuram (North) Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai, Kancheepuram District-600 123. +2cc to M/s.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.55792 W.P.Nos.23053, 23055, 23056 and 23058 of 2021

¶67

VSN-II(CO) RGA(17/11/2021)

¶68

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

S.Sakthivel v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd. (Tasmac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sakthivel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaran Silks Trader Vs The Income Tax Officer

Manisha Arunraj Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Gst)

Sivasankaran Jayalakshmi Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

Swapna Manuel Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Swapna Manuel Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

S.Ramesh Vs The Tamil Nadu State Marketing