Disposed

K.Palani Velu v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC30 Mar 2021WP/8079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent for a No Objection Certificate. Upon grant, the police shall refrain from interfering with the lawful business.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent; 2nd respondent to consider and issue NOC if requirements are satisfied; no further interference with business.

K.Palani Velu Vs The Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 30.03.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

W.P.No.8079 of 2021

¶6

and WMP.No.8627 of 2021

K.Palanivelu

..Petitioner

-vs-

The Commissioner of Police, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner to run a “SPA” i.e.,cross massage in the name and style of “Heavens Ayurveda Beauty Saloon & SPA” at No.19/10, Stanes Road, 2^nd Street, Odakkadu, Tiruppur-602 by passing orders on my representation dated 12.03.2021.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Leonard Vasanth For Respondents : Mr.C.Raghavan Government Advocate

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd respondent to issue a "No Objection Certificate" to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to get the License in accordance with the Official Gazette Notification 252, dated 16.07.2018 and also forbear the 2nd respondent not to unduly interfere with the peaceful conduct of the business i.e., cross massage in the name and style of “Heavens Ayurveda Beauty Saloon & SPA” at No.19/10, Stanes Road, 2^nd Street, Odakkadu, Tiruppur602.

¶17

The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is already running a SPA and the police are under the impression that already No Objection was given by the police. If the petitioner has not obtained any "No

¶18

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

¶19

Objection Certificate", the petitioner can be directed to approach the second respondent and the second respondent will consider the grant of "No Objection Certificate" to the petitioner.

¶20

Recording the submission of the learned Government Advocate, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the second respondent seeking for "No Objection Certificate" for running the business and the second respondent on receipt of the representation shall consider the same and issue "No Objection Certificate" if he satisfies all the requirements. In the event of "No Objection Certificate" is granted, the respondent police shall not, thereafter interfere with the business of the petitioner, until it is run in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
rm
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
North Police Station,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶22

+1 CC to Mr.S.Leonard Vasanth, Advocate sr 20530.

¶23

W.P.No.8079 of 2021 and WMP.No.8627 of 2021

¶24

NK(CO) SP(06/07/2021)

¶25

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

K.Palani Velu v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Palani Velu v. The Commissioner of Police

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

Madhu Vasudevan Vs State Rep by

S.Irfan Vs Barkath

Subburaj Vs the State Represented by

Nakkheeran Gopal Vs C.Ve.Shanmugam

T.Karthik Vs State by

P.Hariram Vs Additional Director General of Police