Dismissed

G.Jerom Santhanaraj v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd(Tasmac

Madras HC4 Feb 2022WP/1562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which sought a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) from proceeding with a tender notice without considering the petitioner's filled documents for a bar license. The Court held that there were no merits in the petition based on a previous order in a bat

What the court decided

AI extract

G.Jerom Santhanaraj Vs The Tamil Nadu… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.02.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.1562 of 2022 (Through Video Conferencing)

¶6

Mr.G.Jerom Santhanaraj, S/o.Gaspar ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Represented by its District Manager, Kancheepuram (North),

¶8

Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai Alaku - III, No.1, Bangalur National High Road, Semparabakkam,

¶9

Thiruvallur District - 602 103. ...Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from proceeding with the Tender Notice dated 14.12.2021 in Na.Ka.No.A3/444/2021 without receiving the filled Tender documents of the petitioner for grant of Bar Licence for TASMAC wine shop no.4461.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Jayprakash For Respondent : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar Standing Counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Mr.K.Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶15

Earlier, a batch of writ petitions were disposed in W.P.Nos.27352 of 2021 etc batch vide its order dated 31.01.2022,

¶16

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

¶17

challenging the Tender Notification dated 14.12.2021 bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.A3/2242/2021.

¶18

In the aforesaid detailed order, this Court has come to the conclusion that neither the petitioners who are the existing licensees can arm-twist the respondents TASMAC to give business to them under the 2003 Rules nor TASMAC can be seen by giving permissions/licenses for these businesses and thereby allow the consumers to violate Section 4A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 and seen in a state of intoxication in public place.

¶19

In view of the above order passed by this Court, I do

¶20

not find any merits in the present writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

arb

¶26

¶27

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Kancheepuram (North), Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai Alaku - III, No.1, Bangalur National High Road, Semparabakkam, Thiruvallur District - 602 103.

¶28

W.P.No.1562 of 2022

¶29

RSV(CO) SP(18/02/2022)

¶30

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

G.Jerom Santhanaraj v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd(Tasmac

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

G.Jerom Santhanaraj v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing corporation Ltd(Tasmac

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

Pandi.a Vs the Managing Director

V.Krishnamurthy Vs The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward-19(6)

K.Selvam Vs The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (Tasmac)

M/s.R.K.M.Electricals Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Sreevatsa Tube Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M.Vijayabharathi Vs The District Manager