Dismissed

Pathinettan S v. the Managing Director

Madras HC9 Feb 2022WP(MD)/1715/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the highest bidder seeking issuance of a bar license and extension of the license period. The court relied on a recent order restraining TASMAC from issuing any new licenses and directed closure of bars. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Pathinettan S Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1715 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1715 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.1517, 1518, 1520 and 1521 of 2022

¶7

S.Pathinettan ... Petitioner

¶8

/vs./

¶9

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), CMDA Complex, Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶10

The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), Anna Nagar, Madurai 625 020. 3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, (TASMAC), Sivagangai District.

¶11

S.Rajkumar ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected to the impugned Notice in Na.Ka.No. A5/1651/2021 dated 31.12.2021 passed by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same consequently directing the respondents to extend the license period for fifteen months.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayaraj for Mr.S.Malaikani For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.H.Arumugam Standing Counsel

¶14

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

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P.(MD) No.1715 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not been issued with licence so far.

¶19

2.Elaborate argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was the highest bidder, but the respondents have not issued Bar licence to the petitioner, pursuant to the tender floated by the respondent TASMAC. There is however no merits in this writ petition.

¶20

3.A batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.27352 of 2021 and etc batch., have been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2022, wherein several writ petitions filed by several persons, challenging the notification dated 14.12.2021. In the aforesaid order, the respondent TASMAC was restrained from giving licence to any person and was also directed to take steps to close down the Bars, wherever licences have been issued to a section of the bidders.

¶21

4.Considering the above stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General and in the light of the order passed in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.27352 of 2021 and etc batch., dated 31.01.2022, dismissing the challenge to the notification dated 14.12.2021, I am inclined to dismiss this writ petition. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

¶23

USK/23.02.2022/2P/2C

¶24

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

¶25

2/2

Pathinettan S v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathinettan S v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendran @ Moovendran Vs the Managing Director

Mani S.P. Vs the Commissioner

Mohanasundaram v Vs the Deputy Transport Commissioner

Saravanakumar K Vs the Secretary to the Government

Ramkumar G Vs the Secretary to the Government

Makesh.M Vs the State of Tamil Nadu