Quashed

Golden Sports and Recretion Club v. the Commissioner

Madras HC22 Sept 2021WP(MD)/15791/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing an FL2 license to a recreation club. The High Court quashed the order for not considering prior reports and remitted the matter to the District Collector to pass a fresh order after a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the District Collector to decide afresh after considering all reports and providing a personal hearing.

Golden Sports and Recretion Club Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD) No.15791 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH Court DATED: 22.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.(MD)No.15791 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.12719 of 2021

¶5

Golden Sports and Recreation Club Rep. by its Secretary V.Rajarathinam ...Petitioner

¶6

-Vs-

¶7

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

¶8

2.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

¶9

3.The Superintendent of Police,

¶10

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

4.The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Rep. by its Managing Director, CMDA Building Tower II, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

5.The District Manager (TASMAC) Madurai South, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶13

6.S.Sumesh ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.48141/2020/Mathu2 dated 06.07.2021 and quash the same as being invalid, illegal and nonest in the eyes of law and direct the 1^st respondent to issue FL2 license based on the report of the second respondent dated 09.03.2021 in Na.Ka.No.48141/2020/X2.

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P(MD) No.15791 of 2021

¶18

For Petitioner : M/S.Vasudha Thiagarajan For R1-R3 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Government Advocate

¶19

For R4-R5 : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶20

Standing Counsel

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.48141/2020/Mathu2 dated 06.07.2021 and quash the same and to direct the 1^st respondent to issue FL2 license based on the report of the second respondent dated 09.03.2021 in Na.Ka.No.48141/2020/X2.

¶23

2. The petitioner is a recreation club which has been registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act on 27.09.2016, with Registration No.113 of 2016, at the office of the District Registrar, Madurai North, Madurai – 14.

¶24

3. As per the object of the recreation club, in order to serve their members, who are about 250 in numbers, the petitioner wanted to get FL2 license from the respondents and when this was taken into account and considered by the second respondent / District Collector, it seems that, there has been earlier objections from some quarters that, this place wherein the recreation club is located, is to an extent shown as prohibited area or an accident zone, due to which, the FL2 license now sought for by the petitioner club shall not be granted.

¶25

4. In this aspect, a report seems to have been called for from the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai, who by his proceedings dated 19.02.2021 issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Prohibition and Excise), Madurai has stated the following:

¶26

“kJiu khtl;lk;> kJiu Nkw;F jhYfh> ehfkiy GJNfhl;il fpuhkj;jpw;Fl;gl;l kJiu-nfhr;rp Njrpa neLQ;rhiy (Nj.ne.vz;.49 e Pl ;rp) fpk P 10/2y; rhiyapd; ,lJ Gwj;jpy; fjT vz;.6 /232 cila fl;blk; mike;Js;sJ. Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l fl;blk; mike;Js;s gFjpapy; fle;j 6 khjq;fspy; tpgj;J VJk; eilngwtpy;iy. NkYk; Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l gFjp kj;jpa murpdhy; epu;zak; nra;ag;gl;l tpgj;Jg;gFjp ml;ltizapy; ,lk; ngwtpy;iy vd;w tpguj;jpid ,jd; %yk; njuptpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;.”

¶27

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

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P(MD) No.15791 of 2021

¶30

5. Subsequently, having considered the same, the second respondent on 09.03.2021 has passed the following order:

¶31

“vdNt> cjtp Mizau; (fyhy; mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapYk;> nrd;id cau;e P jpkd;w kJiu fpis muR tof;fwpQupd; fUj;JU mbg;gilapYk;> kJiu Njrpa neLQ;rhiy> Nfhl;l nghwpahsu; mwpf;ifapd; mbg;gilapYk; Nkw;gb fpsg; muR tpjpKiwfSf;F cl;gl;L nray;gl;L tUfpwJ vdTk;> tpgj;JgFjp ,jw;F nghUe;jhJ vdTk;> Nkw;gb fpsg; mikaTs;s ,lj;jpy; 6 khj fhyj;jpw;F tpgj;J VJk; eilngwtpy;iy vdTk; njupa tUfpwJ. NkYk;> Nkw;gb fpsg;gpy; fpsg;gpd; cWg;gpdu;fSf;F kl;Lk; kJghd tpw;gid nra;ag;gLfpwJ. kDjhuu; kDtpy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ Nghy; lh]; khf; fil khjpup nghJ tpepNahfk; nra;ag;gLtJ ,y;iy. nghJkf;fs; ghjpf;Fk; tifapy; kdkfpo; kd;wk; nray;glhJ vd;Wk; muR tpjpKiwfSf;F cl;gl;L nray;gLk; vd;gij gzpTld; njuptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;”

¶32

6. Though, such a decision has been taken by the second respondent on 09.03.2021, the issue has not come to a conclusion and again it was posed for consideration of the present incumbent of the second respondent office, who has passed an order on 06.07.2021, wherein he has stated the following:

¶33

“,e;epiyapy; khtl;l Ml;rpj;jiytupd; mwpTiuapd;gb> ghu;it-8y; fhZk; fbjj;jpd; %yk; kDjhuUf;F khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiytu; mtu;fs; Kd;ghf 21.06.2021 md;W tprhuizf;F M[uhFkhW njuptpj;J tprhuiz miog;ghiz mDg;gp itf;fg;gl;lJ. Nkw;gb kDjhuu; tprhuizf;F M[uhfp “kJiu khtl;lk;> fjT vz;.6 /232> Njdpnkapd; NuhL> ehfkiy Gjf;Nfhl;il kJiu vd;w Kftupapy; lh];khf; fil 5581-w;F nghJkf;fs; Ml;Nrgiz njuptj;jjhYk;> fhty; Ma;thsu; Accident Zone vd njuptpj;jjhYk; ghu;it-2y; fhZk; cj;jutpw;fpzq;f Vw;fdNt mq;F ,aq;fp te;j lh];khf; fil %lg;gl;lJ. vdNt> mNj Kftupapy; cs;s jp/s;.Nfhy;ld; ]; Nghu;l;]; kw;Wk; nuf;fpupNard; fpsg; miktjw;F mDkjp mspf;ff;$lhJ vd tprhuizapy; njuptpj;Js;shu; kDjhuu;” nfhLj;jthf;F%yj;jpid ,j;Jld; ,izj;J mDg;gpAs;Nsd;.

¶34

vdNt> kJiu khtl;lk;> fjT vz;.6 /232> Njdpnkapd; NuhL> ehfkiy Gjf;Nfhl;il kJiu vd;w Kftupapy; ,aq;fp te;j lh];khf; fil 5581-w;F nghJkf;fs; %bl Ml;Nrgiz njuptpj;jjd; mbg;gilapy; ghu;it-2y; fhZk; cj;jutpw;fpzq;f lh];khf; fil %lg;gl;l mNj Kftupapy; jp/s;.Nfhy;ld; ];Nghu;l;]; kw;Wk; nuf;fpupNard; fpsg; Gjpa vg;.vy;.- 2 cupkk; Nfhupa kDtpid js;Sgb nra;ayhk; vd;gij njuptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;.

¶35

7. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the present second respondent dated 06.07.2021, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition, with the aforesaid prayer.

¶36

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

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P(MD) No.15791 of 2021

¶39

8. Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court to those proceedings referred to above and argued that, the very same issue had already been considered, after getting the report from the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai and after having considered those issues in threadbare, the then District Collector vide his proceedings dated 09.03.2021, has made a recommendation or submitted a report that the petitioner can be considered for grant of FL2 license. However, without considering either of these proceedings, ie., the report submitted by the Divisional Engineer, Highways dated 19.02.2021, as well as the earlier order passed by the second respondent / District Collector dated 09.03.2021, the present incumbent on 06.07.2021, since has passed the impugned order, hence it is vitiated, she contended.

¶40

9. Per contra, learned Government Advocate and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that, though the earlier incumbent of the second respondent vide his order dated 09.03.2021, has stated his views in favour of the petitioner towards the FL2 license, subsequently, the ground reality has been considered by the present incumbent and after having considered the same only, the present order has been passed. Therefore, the impugned order can very well be sustained, they contended.

¶41

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶42

11.Once an order has been passed by the second respondent, who is the authority under law, the same should have been acted upon. However, for what reason again the matter was reconsidered by the second respondent, of course, by a different incumbent within few months, who passed a different order by taking a different view, is not known. Though, such a different view can very well be taken by the second respondent, however, while taking such a view, the second respondent should have considered the report submitted by the Divisional Engineer, Highways dated 19.02.2021, as well as the report of the earlier incumbent of the second respondent office dated 09.03.2021. However, if we look at the various proceedings that has been shown in the reference column of the impugned order dated 06.07.2021, those proceedings have not been considered or not have been found place in the impugned order. Therefore, it has become obvious that those earlier proceedings have not been considered, including the order passed by the second respondent on 09.03.2021.

¶43

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

¶44

4/6

¶45

W.P(MD) No.15791 of 2021

¶46

12. Therefore, this Court feels that, those proceedings also should have been taken into account and accordingly, a comprehensive view should have been arrived at by the second respondent, without which, since this order has been passed, it cannot be countenanced or accepted under the legal scrutiny. Therefore, this Court feels that the impugned order can be interfered with, for the purpose of remitting the matter back to the second respondent for reconsideration.

¶47

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with the following order:

¶48

“the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for reconsideration. While reconsidering the same, the second respondent shall take into account the report submitted by the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai dated 19.02.2021, as well as the earlier report submitted by the second respondent / District Collector dated 09.03.2021 and the second respondent by considering those proceedings as well as any other inputs received by him, and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, a decision can be taken and final orders shall be passed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

14. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

¶52

// True Copy //

¶53

PNM/MR

¶54

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

¶55

5/6

¶56

W.P(MD) No.15791 of 2021

¶57

¶58

1.The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai.

¶59

3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶60

4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) CMDA Building Tower II, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶61

5.The District Manager (TASMAC) Madurai South, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶62

+1 CC to M/s.SPL. GP ( SR-30026[F] dated 23/09/2021 )

¶63

+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-30059[F] dated 23/09/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.A.SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-30105[F] dated 23/09/2021 )

¶64

W.P.(MD)No.15791 of 2021 Dated: 22.09.2021

¶65

RK (22/10/2021) 6P 9C

¶66

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

¶67

6/6

Golden Sports and Recretion Club v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golden Sports and Recretion Club v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sri Shanmugavel Mills Vs the Additional Commissioner

S.v.M.Tiles Vs the State Tax Officer

Bharathidasan University Vs the Joint Commissioner of GST

S.Mohammed Yousuf (Died), Joharal Beevi, Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden

Jeyaraj P Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests

M/S. Anbu Agencies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer