Disposed

B.Gunasekaran v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC17 Apr 2021WP/8498/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2021 regarding a no objection certificate for an SPA business and pass orders on merits without deciding the merits of the case itself. The petition was disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits.

B.Gunasekaran Vs The Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

WP.No.8498 of 2021 & WMP.No.9058 of 2021

¶6

B.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus 1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirupur, Tirupur District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Tirupur Police Station, Tirupur District. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner to run a "SPA" i.e., cross massage in the name and style of "MAGEE BEAUTY CARE AND AYURVEDIC SPA" at Door No.10, Indira Nagar, 3rd Street, Avinashi Road, Tirupur, Tirupur District by passing orders on the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2021.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Edwin Jeyakumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to issue a no objection certificate to the petitioner to run a SPA in the name and style of 'MAGEE BEAUTY CARE AND AYURVEDIC SPA' at Door No.10, Indira Nagar, 3rd Street, Avinashi Road, Tirupur, Tirupur District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 26.02.2021.

¶12

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

3. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents for issuance of no objection certificate and the said representation was not considered by the respondents. Hence, he has come forward with this writ petition.

¶15

4.Thus, without going into the merits of the case, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 26.02.2021 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible.

¶16

5.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mbi
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Tirupur, Tirupur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Tirupur Police Station,
Tirupur District.
+1cc to Mr.S.Leonard Vasanth, Advocate, S.R.No.23254
WP.No.8498 of 2021 &
WMP.No.9058 of 2021
PPA(CO)
CB(18/06/2021)

¶18

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

B.Gunasekaran v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Gunasekaran 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

K.Vijayalakshmi Vs K.R.v.Ramani

E.Nithya Vs the Commissioner of Police

Abirami Vs State Rep by

P.Asokan Vs State Rep by

S.Kayalvizhi Vs State Rep by

Tmt.K.Kavitha Vs The Director General of Police