Disposed

Badri Narayanan.R. v. Commissioner of Food Safety

Madras HC9 Nov 2021WP/33601/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a direction not to interfere with the petitioner's tobacco business. The court observed that the petitioner's counsel admitted no current harassment, while respondents claimed actions were lawful. The petition was disposed of with no orders and a direction not to interfere unnecessarily.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to interfere unnecessarily with the petitioner's business; petition disposed of without costs.

Badri Narayanan.R. Vs Commissioner of Food Safety — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.11.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶3

W.P.No.33601 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.37153 of 2017

¶4

R.Badri Narayanan ...Petitioner ..Vs..

¶5

1.Commissioner of food safety and Drug administration,

¶6

5^th Floor, DMS Campus,

¶7

259, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶8

2.The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, No.1, Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 005.

¶9

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Ring Road, Ezil Nagar, Dindigul.

¶10

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, DSP Office, Dindigul.

¶11

5.The Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Dindigul.

¶12

6.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

¶13

7.Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Kotla Road, FDA Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus,

¶16

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

¶17

directing the respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere in carrying of the business by the petitioner within the purview of Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.

¶18

For Petitioner :Mr.D.Veerasekaran For Respondents :Mr.V.Nanmaran

¶19

Government Advocate for R1 to R6

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This writ petition has been filed, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with the business of the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition has been filed in the year 2017 since there was harassment by the respondents by interfering with the business activity of the petitioner. After filing the writ petition, there was no harassment and the respondents have not been interfering with the business of the petitioner.

¶23

Mr.V.Nanmaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submits that the respondents had not committed the offence of harassment even prior to filing of the present Writ Petition as alleged by the petitioner and if at all any such interference was made, it was only in accordance with law.

¶24

In view of the above, no orders are necessary in this Writ Petition. However, it is needless to mention that in the event of any illegality committed by the petitioner, the respondents are always at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. At the same, the respondents are directed not to interfere unnecessarily with the business of the petitioner.

¶25

With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

s/d-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

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

¶31

Pns To

¶32

1.Commissioner of food safety and Drug administration,

¶33

5^th Floor, DMS Campus,

¶34

259, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶35

2.The Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, No.1, Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 005.

¶36

3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Ring Road, Ezil Nagar, Dindigul.

¶37

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, DSP Office, Dindigul.

¶38

5.The Inspector of Police, Town West Police Station, Dindigul.

¶39

6.The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.

¶40

7.Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Kotla Road, FDA Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶41

+1 CC to Mr.D.Veerasekaran, Advocate sr 57779

¶42

+1 CC to The Government Pleader sr 58012.

¶43

W.P.No.33601 of 2017

¶44

SS(CO) SP(03/12/2021)

¶45

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

Badri Narayanan.R. v. Commissioner of Food Safety

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Narayanan.R. v. Commissioner of Food Safety

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

V.Murugaiyan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr.Rajeev Thilak.C, M.S. Vs The Medical Council

K.Abubacker, Vs The National Highways

M/s.Shree Shakthi Theatre Vs The Additional Chief

S.Sivachalapathi, Vs The Assistant Engineer

N.R.Prahash Vs Union of India