Disposed

Thilagachandran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC20 Jan 2022WP(MD)/737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to decide the petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2021 for a refund of license fee proportions cancelled due to pandemic lockdowns within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to dispose of the petitioner's prayer for refund of license fee within six weeks.

Thilagachandran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

iWP(MD)No.737 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.01.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.737 of 2022

Thilagachandran

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶11

Rep. By the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 09.

¶12

2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.

¶13

3.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent 2 to refund the license fee to the petitioner under Rule 24A of Tamil Nadu Liquor (License and Permit) Rules, 1981 along with interest for the loss of petitioner due to closure of his bar from the period 01.04.2017 to 31.08.2017 and again from 17.03.2020 to 31.08.2020 by considering the representation made by the petitioner on 04.05.2021 within stipulated time.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veluchamy for Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

In the captioned writ petition, Mr.S.Veluchamy, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader who accepts notice on behalf of all the three respondents are before this virtual Court.

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

iWP(MD)No.737 of 2022

¶21

Notwithstanding the slightly expansive prayer, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for the writ petitioner on instructions submitted that the writ petitioner abridges his prayer and limits / restricts it to a simple mandamus qua his representation dated 04.05.2021 (at page No.9 of the typed set of papers).

¶22

Owing to the extremely narrow compass on which the matter now turns, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides main writ petition was taken up.

¶23

In the light of the limited scope of the captioned writ petition now (owing to the narrowed down prayer) on facts, it will suffice to say that writ petitioner was favoured with a Bar license and writ petitioner has paid license fee for the same for the periods 01.04.2017 to 31.08.2017 and 17.03.2020 to 31.08.2020 but the Bar was closed owing to corona virus pandemic / consequent lock down which none could portend or presage. In this view of the matter, writ petitioner has sought refund of a portion of the license fee paid which according to the writ petitioner is proportionate to the period of closure.

¶24

In the light of the narrowed down and limited prayer this Court does not propose to dilate any further on facts much less say anything on merits. Be that as it may, an order made by a Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court being order dated 17.03.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.2605 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.2143 of 2021 therein in what according to the writ petitioner in some what similar circumstances has been placed before me. In that order another Hon'ble Single Judge has directed refund of a portion of the license fee. It is not clear if there is any intra Court appeal or whether that order has been complied. However that order is now not of any relevance or significance qua the case on hand owing to the abridged prayer of the writ petitioner.

¶25

Ergo, captioned writ petition is disposed of by issuing a simple mandamus / directive to the third respondent to dispose of writ petitioner's representation dated 04.05.2021 on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as the business of the third respondent would permit and in any event within six weeks from today i.e., on or before 03.03.2022. Before concluding this order, this Court deems it appropriate to scan and reproduce the representation of the petitioner dated 04.05.2021 (for ease of reference / ready reference ) and the same is as follows:

¶26

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

¶27

2/4

¶28

iWP(MD)No.737 of 2022

¶29

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

¶30

3/4

¶31

iWP(MD)No.737 of 2022

¶32

The disposal of the aforesaid representation on its own merits and in accordance with law shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgment within seven working days from the date of disposal. Writ Petition is disposed of with this directive. Though obvious it is made clear, for the sake of specificity that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merits of the matter including the right of the writ petitioner and or similarly placed persons in cases of this nature. Such a question regarding rights of the writ petitioner in cases of this nature is left open for being decided in other cases where such a decision may become imperative for disposal of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶34

// True Copy //

¶35

vsm

¶36

Note : 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.

¶37

¶38

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai – 09.

¶39

2.The District Collector, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi. 3.The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Prohibition and Excise Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶40

W.P(MD)No.737 of 2022 20.01.2022 nsn(CO) TR(02.02.2022) 4P 4C

¶41

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

¶42

4/4

Thilagachandran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilagachandran v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Sanjeevi.R Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

Stalin.L Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Radhakrishnan.M Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Dinakaran.D Vs the District Collector

H.Hameem Mustafa Vs the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board

S.Nambirajan, Trustee, Vs the Joint Commissioner