Disposed

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid, v. The Commissioner

Madras HC5 Jun 2023WP/15994/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed by a Jain petitioner who sought a ban on a third respondent's non-vegetarian eatery. The court rejected the plea that non-vegetarian food is illegal or causes nuisance, stating dietary choices are personal. The license issue was left to the Corporation to verify.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of the prayer to ban non-vegetarian food; matter of potential licensing violation left for the Corporation to verify.

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid, Vs The Commissioner — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P No.15994 of 2023

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid

Petitioner

vs.

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶11

The Assistant Revenue Officer, IX th Zone, Corporation of Chennai, Valluvarkottam, Chennai.

¶12

Sahul Hameed Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner seeking not to grant trade licenses to the 3^rd respondent to run eatery intended to serve non-vegetarian items in Door No.43/1, Bazaar Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramachandran For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi

¶15

¶16

Standing Counsel for R1 and R2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of writ of

¶19

mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the

¶20

representation made by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has requested the 2^nd respondent not to grant any trade license to the 3^rd

¶21

respondent to serve non-vegetarian food in the subject property.

¶22

2. Heard Mr.R.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing on

¶23

behalf of the petitioner and Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing

¶24

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

The main grievance that has been expressed by the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent is running a small shop in Door No.43/1, Bazaar Road, Mylapore, Chennai -4 and is serving non-

¶26

vegetarian food to the customers. The petitioner who follows Jainism

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

¶29

is not comfortable with the business that is carried on by the 3^rd respondent and it certainly puts the petitioner to some hardship. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent is running the business without obtaining any license from the 2^nd respondent.

¶30

Insofar as the 1^st grievance that has been raised by the petitioner, the same is clearly unsustainable. The petitioner cannot dictate as to whether an eatery should serve only vegetarian food and that serving of non-vegetarian food is causing nuisance to the petitioner and the nearby residents. Eating vegetarian or nonvegetarian food is a matter of choice and nobody has the right to dictate which food should be served or eaten by others. If the petitioner is a pure vegetarian, the petitioner can follow his belief and life style and he should not be permitted to propagate or impose it on others. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent is doing business by running an eatery serving nonvegetarian food, by no stretch can be called as illegal and at the

¶31

best, it is only causing discomfort to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

¶33

¶34

Insofar as the 2^nd grievance that has been raised by the

¶35

petitioner to the effect that the 3^rd respondent is running the eatery without any license, it is left open to the Corporation to verify if the eatery is being run without license and if so, they shall take action in

¶36

the manner known to law.

¶37

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶38

05.06.2023

¶39

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No rka To

¶40

The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶41

The Assistant Revenue Officer, IX th Zone, Corporation of Chennai, Valluvarkottam, Chennai.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

¶44

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶45

rka

¶46

W.P No.15994 of 2023

¶47

05.06.2023

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.S.Sumermull Baid, v. The Commissioner

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

Selvanathan Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest

The General Manager Vs T.Mahalingam

Sowrirajan venkata Varadhachari Vs The Commissioner

S.Abdul suban sahib Vs The District Collector

M.S.Maasen Enterprises Vs The Managing Director

Nagaraj Vs The Inspector of Panchayat-cum-District Collector