Disposed

Suresh v. the Managing Director

Madras HC12 Sept 2022WP(MD)/3035/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the rejection of an objection raised against opening a TASMAC shop, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the statutory appellate authority under Rule 9A of the Liquor Retail Vending Rules, 2003 within two weeks, and disposed of the petition without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks.

Suresh Vs the Managing Director — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶7

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022 and

¶8

WMP(MD)Nos.2649 & 2650 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.

¶13

2.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶14

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

¶15

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.J2/35374/2021 dated 12.01.2022 and quash the

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶18

same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents 2 & 3 to close down the TASMAC shop No.6501 situated at Survey No.21/27, Town Ward No.16, New Ward No.19, Kattumavadi Mukkam, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Nataraj, Government Advocate for R2 Mr.H.Arumugam, Standing Counsel for R1 & R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶22

The relief sought in this Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.J2/35374/2021 dated 12.01.2022 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondents 2 & 3 to close down the TASMAC shop No.6501, situated at Survey No.21/27, Town Ward No.16, New Ward No.19, Kattumavadi Mukkam, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District.

¶23

According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Aranthangi, Pudukottai District and he raised an objection for opening a liquor shop in the location in dispute, pointing out certain violations of the Tamil Nadu 2/6

¶24

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶25

Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003. However, the second respondent rejected the said objection by the order dated 12.01.2022, which is impugned herein.

¶26

Though the petitioner raised very many grounds assailing the order passed by the second respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted the relief sought herein by stating that an appeal against the opening of TASMAC shop lies under Rule 9A of the Rules, 2003 and hence, it would suffice, if a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, for which, there is no serious objection on the side of the respondents.

¶27

In view of the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has not been seriously opposed on the side of the respondents, this Court permits the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, within a period of 60 days thereafter.

¶28

3/6

¶29

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶30

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶31

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶32

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

¶33

[R.M.D.,J.] & [J.S.N.P.,J.] 12.09.2022

¶34

vsm

¶35

4/6

¶36

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶37

¶38

1.The Managing Director, TASMAC Ltd.,

¶39

4^th Floor, C.M.D.A. Tower – II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶40

2.The District Collector, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.

¶41

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

¶42

5/6

¶43

W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶44

R.MAHADEVAN,J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD,J.

¶45

vsm

¶46

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.3035 of 2022

¶47

DATED : 12.09.2022

¶48

6/6

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

The Secretary Vs the Director of Town & Country

Elumalai Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Balasubramanian, Vs The District Collector

Pudukottai District Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Nagavalli. P Vs the District Collector

D.Murugesan Vs Indian Overseas Bank