Disposed

A.Rajamani v. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Service

Madras HC18 Nov 2021WP/24668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging an order to vacate a government kiosk. Instead of deciding the merits, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for an alternative shop and the respondent to dispose of it within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation for an alternative shop within one week; respondent to dispose of same within four weeks.

A.Rajamani Vs The Director of Medical and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.24668 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.25960 & 25961 of 2021

¶6

A. Rajamani .. Petitioner Versus

¶7

The Director of Medical & Rural Health Service, 3^rd Floor, DMS Complex, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶8

The Dean, Govt Medical College Hospital, Tiruppur & District.

¶9

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Medical Services), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District – 641 603. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the proceedings of the impugned order passed by the third respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the kiosk in the 2^nd respondent premises either in the same place or by providing an alternative place in the 2^nd Respondent's premises.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Thilageswaran For Respondents : Mr. M.R. Gokulkrishnan Government Advocate for R1

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the kiosk in the 2^nd respondent premises either in the same place or by providing an alternative place in the 2^nd Respondent's premises.

¶15

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶16

(i) The petitioner is a destitute widow and also a member of the registered Association viz., National Association of Educated Self Employed Youth (NAESEY). With the help of the said Association, She was running NAESEY Snacks Kiosks for vending Snacks, Tea & Coffee at the premises of the second respondent from 14.12.2000 and it has been renewed periodically.

¶17

(ii) while matter stood thus, all of a sudden, by way of the impugned order passed by the third respondent, she was asked to vacate the said Kiosk within seven days with a vague allegation that the said Kiosk would obstruct the construction of the new Medical College building.

¶18

(iii) According to the petitioner, she being a widow, has no other livelihood except the income derived from the said Kiosk. The petitioner states that without taking into consideration the livelihood of the petitioner and without giving sufficient time, the third respondent has passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer by way of this writ petition.

¶19

Heard Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.R.Gokulkrishnan, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing on either side, this Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent concerned for allotment alternative shop within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent concerned is directed to dispose of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶21

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

¶22

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

Rli

¶28

¶29

The Director of Medical & Rural Health Service, 3^rd Floor, DMS Complex, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶30

The Dean, Govt Medical College Hospital, Tiruppur & District.

¶31

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Medical Services), Tiruppur, Tiruppur District – 641 603.

¶32

+1cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No. 59770

¶33

W.P.No.24668 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.25960 & 25961 of 2021

¶34

KSM(CO) GN(17/12/2021)

¶35

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

A.Rajamani v. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Rajamani v. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Service

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

Dr.S.Karthika Vs National Medical Commission

Rajendran Vs State Rep by

Hameed Kidanhi Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

D.Boopalan Vs The Government of India

Rev.Dr.v.S.Isaac Aiyya Vs The Director

Sivasankaran Vs State Rep by Its