Disposed

R.Saminathan v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Apr 2021WP(MD)/1466/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL, the petitioner sought a writ to shift liquor shops near a school. The court dismissed the immediate claim due to lack of clear distance details, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation with specific particulars.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of petition directing petitioner to submit a fresh representation with particulars within two weeks for consideration on merits within four weeks.

R.Saminathan Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1466 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.04.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1466 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No.1159 of 2020

¶7

R.Saminathan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs 1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Collector Office Building, Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul. 4.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District. 5.The District Manager, TASMAC, Mullipady, Trichy Road, Dindigul. ... Respondents (R5 impleaded vide order of Court dated 23.04.2021 made in W.M.P. (MD) No. 1789 of 2020 by TSSJ & SAIJ)

¶9

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to forthwith shift the Liquor Shop No.3185 and Shop No.3347 situated opposite to Oddanchathiram Bus Stand to any other place in accordance with law without any further delay.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Janakiramulu For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr.K.P.Krishnadass Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.5 : H.Arumugam

¶11

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

¶12

___________ Page 1 of 3_

¶13

W.P.(MD)No.1466 of 2020

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ] This Writ Petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to forthwith shift the Liquor Shop Nos.3185 and 3347 situated opposite to Oddanchathiram Bus Stand to any other place in accordance with law without any further delay.

¶16

2.Heard Mr.R.Janakiramulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.K.P.Krishnadass, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶17

3.According to the petitioner, the IMFL retail shops are located very nearer the school and the school going children and the public are put to lot of hardships.

¶18

4.According to the fifth respondent, the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.12.2019, does not specifically says that there is any violation of distance rule. That apart, it is not clear as to whether the shops are located inside the market or they are facing main road, because the rough sketch did not say so. Therefore, the representation given by the petitioner does not clearly disclose the distance between the shops and the schools. Hence, we are not inclined to pass any positive order.

¶19

5.Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the first respondent containing all the particulars within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be considered by the first respondent on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks therefrom. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

¶25

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned .

¶26

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

¶27

___________ Page 2 of 3_

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.1466 of 2020

¶29

To:

¶30

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Collector Office Building, Dindigul. 3.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.

¶31

4.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Ottanchathiram, Dindigul District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-17543[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.R.JANAKIRAMULU, Advocate ( SR-17506[F] dated 26/04/2021 )

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.1466 of 2020

¶35

23.04.2021

¶36

RK(27.05.2021) 3P 7C

¶37

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

¶38

___________ Page 3 of 3_

R.Saminathan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Saminathan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanmughanandha Karthees Vs the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry

Vignesh Vs The Superintendent of Police

Maheswari.R Vs the District Collector

Sunil Kumar.a Vs the District Collector

Jeyasundaram Vs the District Collector

E.Petchiammal Vs The District Collector