Disposed

Murugan .M v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Mar 2022WP(MD)/4090/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, directing the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the restriction on relocating a TASMAC shop within four weeks, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after hearing interested parties.

Murugan .M Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4090 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.03.2022 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.(MD) No.4090 of 2022

¶4

M.Murugan ... Petitioner /vs./

¶5

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶6

2.The District Manager, TASMAC, No.29-34, SIDCO Industrial Park, Choolakkarai, Virudhunagar 626 003.

¶7

3.The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Prohibition and Excise, Chepak, Chennai 600 005. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents enquire into and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2022 with regard to restraining the respondents from relocating/establishing the TASMAC shop in the Door.No.2/1188/90, Survey No.561/3B, K.P.N.Venkadasamy Nagar, Sithurajapuram Village cum Panchayat, Virudhunagar, within a time to be fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Thiyagaiya For R1 & R3 : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.H.Arumugam

¶10

ORDER

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by directing the 1^st respondent/The District Collector, Virudhunagar District to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2022 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that before passing such orders, the petitioner and the interested https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

1/2

¶13

W.P.(MD) No.4090 of 2022

¶14

persons, who are likely to be affected by such orders, shall also be heard. No costs.

¶15

// True Copy //

¶16

Sd/Deputy Registrar (LA & MC) / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶17

mm To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2.The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Prohibition and Excise, Chepak, Chennai 600 005. +1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-11365[F] dated 10/03/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-10995[F] dated 09/03/2022 )

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.4090 of 2022 08.03.2022

¶19

MGJ(23.03.2022) 2P 5C

¶20

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

¶21

2/2

Murugan .M v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murugan .M v. the District Collector

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

Tamil Nadu Thirukovil Kadaigal Vs the Principal Secretary

Chenthil Arasu Vs the District Collector Cum

Kannan.P Vs the District Collector

M/S. Atc Tires Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals)

M.Deivendran Vs The Commissioner of Municipality

Melur Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax