Disposed

Vijaya Bharathi. K v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Jan 2023WP(MD)/554/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a Writ Petition challenging the shifting of a TASMAC shop. The court observed that the ordering authority had granted permission to shift, rendering the petition moot. It permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner under the relevant Rules and disposed of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Commissioner within two weeks; if filed, the Commissioner is directed to pass orders within four weeks.

Vijaya Bharathi. K Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.554 of 2023 and

¶8

W.M.P.(MD)Nos.559 and 563 of 2023

K.Vijaya Bharathi

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.State of Tamil Nadu,

¶13

Rep by its Principal Secretary,

¶14

Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,

¶15

Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶16

2.The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd.,

¶17

Corporation Ltd, Rep. by its

¶18

Chairman and Managing Director,

¶19

Thalamuthu Natarajar Building,

¶20

Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2023

¶24

3.The District Collector,

¶25

Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶26

4.The District Manager,

¶27

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Ltd., Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶28

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.A6/0565/2022, dated 15.12.2022 on the file of the 4^th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents 3 and 4 to shift the TASMAC shop in Shop No.6805 in T.S.No.7/68 at Door No.12/338-K-6-1, Bhagwath Singh Road, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District which is in violation of the Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (In shops and Bars) Rules, 2003.

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 & R3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For R2 & R4 : Mr.S.Sivanesan, Standing Counsel

¶30

Page 2 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶35

The order of the 4^th respondent dated 15.12.2022, shifting the

¶36

TASMAC Shop in Shop No.6805, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶37

2.Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.S.Sivanesan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 2 and 4.

¶38

3.By consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶39

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 has produced the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.P.4/29776/2022, dated 13.07.2022, wherein the 3^rd respondent has granted permission to shift the TASMAC shop in question, which was also referred to in the impugned order. Therefore, nothing survives in this Writ Petition.

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2023

¶43

5.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks liberty to challenge the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 13.07.2022 before the appellate authority, namely, Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department under Section 9(A)(1) of Tamil Nadu Liquor Retail Vending (in shops and bars) Rules, 2003.

¶44

6.Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioner, we are inclined to permit the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the appeal is filed within the time stipulated above, the Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department, is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2023

¶49

7.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶50

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶51

[D.K.K., J.] & [R.V., J.] 10.01.2023

¶52

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MYR

¶53

¶54

1.The Principal Secretary,

¶55

State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶56

2.The District Collector,

¶57

Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶58

3.The Commissioner,

¶59

Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶60

Chennai.

¶61

Page 5 of 6

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.(MD) No.554 of 2023

¶64

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶65

MYR

¶66

W.P.(MD)No.554 of 2023

¶67

10.01.2023

¶68

Page 6 of 6

¶69

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

Vijaya Bharathi. K v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaya Bharathi. K v. 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

Siva Perumal .N Vs The District Collector

Gnanavel T Vs The District Collector

Ranjith Kumar Vs The District Collector

Johnsirajam.C Vs The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayat

Lenin.M Vs The Authorised Officer

Veeramani Vs The District Collector