Disposed

S.Rajamuniyasmay v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Madras HC23 Dec 2021WP/27589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition directing the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to dispose of a representation regarding an FL2 License. The Court held the competent authority was the third respondent and directed the petitioner to issue a similar request to the third respondent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to send appropriate request to third respondent for consideration and disposal within four weeks.

S.Rajamuniyasmay Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.27589 of 2021

S.Rajamuniyasamy,

S/o.Selvam

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise,

¶11

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶12

2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, C.M.D.A Building, Tower-II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge,

¶13

Egmore, Chennai – 08.

¶14

3.The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 03.12.2021 and dispose the same in the light of permissions already granted in favour of the petitioner on 18.10.2021 in accordance with law within a stipulated period.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Loganathan For Respondents: For R1 : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar Special Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the second and third respondents.

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition, to direct the first respondent to consider the representation dated 03.12.2021 and to dispose the same in the light of FL2 License granted by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the competent authority who has to consider the request of the petitioner is the third respondent and that no representation has been sent by the petitioner to the third respondent.

¶22

Since the petitioner has nor sent any representation to the third respondent, this writ petition is disposed by directing the petitioner to send appropriate letter of intent to the third respondent with a request which was sent to the first respondent by mistake. In case such request is made by the petitioner, the third respondent shall consider the same and dispose the same in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

arb

¶29

¶30

1.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶31

2.The Managing Director,

¶32

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, C.M.D.A Building, Tower-II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge, Egmore, Chennai – 08.

¶33

3.The District Manager,

¶34

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Virudhunagar District.

W.P.No.27589 of 2021

rsi[co]

srg 23/12/2021

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

S.Rajamuniyasmay v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajamuniyasmay v. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

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

Mohan Sharma Vs Chennai Metropolitan

Sathosh Kumar Kannodia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Makwuds India Privat Limited Vs The Principal commissioner of customs

Tvl.National Furnitures and Appliances Vs Commercial Tax Officer (main)

S.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Managing Director

Burnt Umber Fashion Private Limited Vs Assistant commissioner (St)