Dismissed

Suresh v. the Managing Director

Madras HC1 Feb 2022WP(MD)/1734/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking a restraining order against the opening of a TASMAC shop. The court held the petition became infructuous as the requisite approval had already been granted by the District Collector, rendering further interim relief unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

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

¶1

W.P(MD)No.1734 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 01.02.2022

¶4

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

W.P(MD)No.1734 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD) No.1534 of 2022

Suresh

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd., 4^th Floor, C.M.D.A. Tower – II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶10

3.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd., Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from opening the TASMAC Shop No.6501 at Survey No.21/27, Town Ward No.16, New Ward No.19, Kattumavadi Mukkam, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.01.2022.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar

¶13

For Respondent Nos.1 : Mr.H.Arumugam & 3 Standing Counsel For Respondent No.2 : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.)

¶16

The Writ Petition is filed seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from opening the TASMAC Shop No.6501 at Survey No.21/27, Town Ward No.16, New Ward No.19, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

Page 1/2

¶18

W.P(MD)No.1734 of 2022

¶19

Kattumavadi Mukkam, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 24.01.2022.

¶20

2.Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶21

3.The petitioner has made several allegations including that the proposed TASMAC Shop No.6501 is located in breach of the conditions of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003.

¶22

4.Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 and 3 on instructions, submitted that it is not a new shop, but the existing shop was shifted to a new premises and the Writ Petition has been filed at the instance of the erstwhile owner of the premises, which is in a dilapidated condition. Besides that, it is stated that the second respondent has already granted approval to the said shop on 12.01.2022, but the representation was made only on 24.01.2022.

¶23

5.Since the approval for the shop has already been granted, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the approval granted by the District Collector, if he is so advised. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

¶25

Note :

¶26

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.

¶27

¶28

1.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-3668[F] dated 02/02/2022 )

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MGJ(10.02.2022) 2P 4C

¶31

Page 2/2

Suresh v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajamani Vs the Authorized Officer / Manager

Thomas .S Vs the Branch Manager

M/S Sri Lakshmi Industries Vs the Authorised Officer

Tulsidas.K.Patel Vs the District Revenue Officer

Tamilarasu P Vs the Authorised Officer

Murugeswari Vs the Commissioner