Dismissed

P.Sudar Raman v. The Commissioner

Madras HC15 Feb 2023WP/4493/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the issuance of a notice by the Zonal Officer to stop trade under Section 379(A)(1) of the CCMC Act while a license grant application was pending. The court held that authorities must first decide on the application regardless of missing certificates, as the business falls under the white category. The notice was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 08.02.2023 is set aside. Authorities directed to decide on the license application.

P.Sudar Raman Vs The Commissioner — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.4493 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.4493 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.4508 of 2023

P.Sundar Raman

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶11

2.The Zonal Officer, Zone-7, Ambattur, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

3.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone-7, Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, 536, CTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner resorting to or processing with the notice of the 2^nd respondent dated 08.02.2023 under Section -379(A) (1) of the CCMC Act, IV of 1919, without considering the application dated 08.08.2022 seeking grant of license for the petitioner's lathe industry at No.18, Rathinam Street, Dr.Moorthy Nagar Extension, Padi, Chennai – 600 050.

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

W.P.No.4493 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶19

For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Rama Devi

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed to forbear the respondents from in any manner

¶22

resorting to or processing with the notice of the 2 nd respondent dated 08.02.2023

¶23

under Section -379(A) (1) of the CCMC Act, IV of 1919, without considering the application dated 08.08.2022 seeking grant of license for the petitioner's lathe industry at No.18, Rathinam Street, Dr.Moorthy Nagar Extension, Padi, Chennai – 600 050.

¶24

2 . The case of the Writ Petitioner is that he is running lathe business from the year 2017 and only recently the respondents insisted for getting license. Accordingly, he has applied for license on 08.08.2023. Pending the application, the impugned notice has been served by the second respondent to the petitioner by notifying that to stop the trade within 24 hours of the receipt of the notice.

¶25

3 . Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that since

¶26

no objection certificate from the Pollution Board is not annexed with the application, the application is not processed.

¶27

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

¶28

2/4

¶29

W.P.No.4493 of 2023

¶30

4 . Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶31

that the Pollution Board has informed the petitioner that since the business comes under the white category, no such certificate is required, which has been intimated by the respondents. However, no orders have been passed on his application. As the application is pending, it is for the authorities to consider and pass orders, whether to grant license or not. Till such decision is taken, ought not to have issued the impugned notice.

¶32

5 . In such view of the matter, the impugned notice dated 08.02.2023 is set aside. The authorities shall decide whether to give a license or not on the petitioner's application dated 08.08.2022 and thereafter, take action as per law.

¶33

6 . With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

15.02.2023

¶35

Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

W.P.No.4493 of 2023

¶40

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶41

¶42

¶43

1.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶44

2.The Zonal Officer, Zone-7, Ambattur, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai – 600 003.

¶45

3.The Assistant Revenue Officer, Zone-7, Revenue Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, 536, CTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

¶46

W.P.No.4493 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.4508 of 2023

¶47

15.02.2023

¶48

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

¶49

4/4

P.Sudar Raman v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sudar Raman 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

S.Rajammal Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

V.Kumaravelan and Another Vs the Commissioner

M.Senthil Kumar, Vs The Regional Transport Officer

D.Poornima Rangarajan Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/The District Collector

Pavan Konduru Vs The District Collector

K.Venugopal Vs The Commissioner