Disposed

Dr.v.Subramaniyan, v. the State Rep by Secretary

Madras HC27 Sept 2021WP(MD)/18637/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus preventing respondents from granting a TASMAC shop license in a building owned by the 6th respondent. Due to the 6th respondent's absence after seven years, the Court could not decide the fitness of the location but disposed of the petition with an observation to consider objections if a license application is made thereafter.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dr.v.Subramaniyan, Vs the State Rep by Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.18637 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 27.09.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.18637 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013

¶7

Dr.V.Subramaniyan .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State Rep by Secretary to Government, (Prohibition & Excise), Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶10

The Managing Director, TASMAC, C.M.D.A Tower, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

The District Collector, Trichy.

¶12

The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Trichy.

¶13

The District Manager, TASMAC, Thuvakudi. Trichy.

¶14

Mahendran ..Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 not to grant license to open a TASMAC Shop and Bar in the 6^th respondent building situated in VOC Street, Ward No.36 Ponmalai Patti, Trichy.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Deepak For R1 & R3 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj, Government Advocate For R2,R4 and to R5 : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, Standing Counsel For R6 : Mr.B.Balachandar

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.18637 of 2013

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 not to grant license to open a TASMAC Shop or Bar in the sixth respondent building situated in VOC Street, Ward No.36 Ponmalai Patti, Trichy.

¶22

2.Though Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 based on his instructions as well as the averment made in the counter affidavit would submit that the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition has become infructuous, Mr.C.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has not received any definite instruction in this regard from the petitioner.

¶23

3.Be that as it may, the prayer itself is to seek for a Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 not to grant license to open a TASMAC Shop or Bar in the sixth respondent building situated in VOC Street, Ward No.36 Ponmalai Patti, Trichy.

¶24

4.Since the sixth respondent has not come before this Court to oppose the prayer, at this juncture ie., after seven or eight years, this Court cannot decide whether the location of the building belongs to the sixth respondent is the fittest location for locating the TASMAC shop or not and in this regard, the objection raised by the petitioner whether can be accepted or not cannot also be decided at this moment.

¶25

5.However, if at all the TASMAC wants to open a TASMAC retail shop in the premises belongs to the sixth respondent, for which any objection come from the petitioner's side, the same can be considered and accordingly, a decision can be taken as per the relevant rule in this regard.

¶26

6.With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

ias/mga

¶28

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.18637 of 2013

¶31

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.

¶32

¶33

Secretary to Government, (Prohibition & Excise), Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶34

The District Collector, Trichy. 3.The Managing Director, TASMAC, C.M.D.A Tower, Egmore, Chennai.

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.18637 of 2013

¶36

27.09.2021

¶37

SMV(CO) KB(25.10.2021) 3P 4C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

Dr.v.Subramaniyan, v. the State Rep by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr.v.Subramaniyan, v. the State Rep by Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sivanthi Joe Substrates Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S. Balaji Traders Vs the State Tax Officer

P.Chandrasekar, S/O.Pandian, Vs the Transport Commissioner

Chellapandi Vs the District Manager

Krishnamurthy Vs the Block Development Officer

Sasikumar R Vs the District Collector