Partly allowed

V.Mohan, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC2 Feb 2024WP/2273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to prevent shifting of a TASMAC shop operating on his property. Court directed District Collector to consider a pending representation, prohibited shifting for two months, and dismissed W.M.P. on file closure.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed; District Collector directed to consider and dispose of representation dated 11.10.2023 within two months; shifting of Shop No. 2004 stayed until then. W.M.P. closed.

V.Mohan, Vs the Secretary to Government — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P.No.2273 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2470 of 2024

V.Mohan

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Secretary to Government

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner

¶13

Prohibition and Excise Department Cheppakkam, Chennai 05.

¶14

3.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing Ltd., CMDA Building

¶15

Tower - II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road Egmore, Chennai 08.

¶16

4.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶17

5.The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation

¶18

1/8

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶21

Coimbatore.

¶22

6.The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Tiruppur. ... Respondents

¶23

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein or their men or agent from shifting the TASMAC

¶24

outlet bearing Shop No.2004 along with bar located at D.No.1C3, 1C4 & 1D, Pasupathy Street, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar for Ms.R.Meenakshi

¶26

For Respondents : Mrs.E.Sundarani, GA 1, 2, 4

¶27

For Respondents : Mr.V.Balakrishnan, SC (TASMAC) 3, 5, 6

¶28

For Respondent 7 : Mr.D.Ravichander, Spl. GP

¶29

¶30

2/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶33

ORDER

¶34

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the sixth respondent not to shift TASMAC Shop No.2004 from the address specified in the prayer. The petitioner asserts that he is the owner of the property where TASMAC Shop No.2004 is located, and has been functioning for more than 16 years. The present writ petition is filed on the apprehension that TASMAC would shift the shop.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a public interest litigation was filed and that the said petition was disposed of by order dated 04.08.2017 directing the District Collector to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner therein. Pursuant thereto, the District Collector issued an order in February 2018 rejecting the representation on the ground that the shop has been established in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Retail Liquor

¶36

3/8

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶39

Vending (in shops and bars) Rules, 2003. Learned counsel also points out that the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 11.10.2023 to the District Collector in this regard.

¶40

Mrs.E.Sundarani, learned Government Advocate, accepts

¶41

notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 4; Mr.V.Balakrishnan, learned standing counsel (TASMAC), accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6; and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the seventh respondent. Learned standing counsel for TASMAC submits that the TASMAC shop is functioning at the petitioner's property.

¶42

In view of the order of the District Collector of February 2018, there is no impediment to the functioning of the shop at present. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out however, that the shop may be shifted at the instigation of Uma Traders. The representation was submitted to the District Collector in that context.

¶43

4/8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶46

In these circumstances, it is sufficient to direct the District

¶47

Collector to consider and dispose of the representation dated 11.10.2023.

¶48

Accordingly, W.P.No.2273 of 2024 is disposed of by directing the District collector to consider and dispose of the representation dated 11.10.2023 after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and any other interested person. Such representation shall be disposed of within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until such time, Shop No.2004 shall not be shifted from the current location. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.2470 of 2024 is closed.

¶49

02.02.2024

¶50

rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No

¶51

5/8

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶54

¶55

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶56

2.The Commissioner Prohibition and Excise Department Cheppakkam, Chennai 05.

¶57

3.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing Ltd., CMDA Building Tower - II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road Egmore, Chennai 08.

¶58

4.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶59

5.The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Coimbatore.

¶60

6.The District Manager

¶61

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Tiruppur.

¶62

6/8

¶63

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

¶64

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

¶65

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶66

rna

¶67

W.P.No.2273 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2470 of 2024

¶68

7/8

¶69

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

W.P.No.2273 of 2024

02.02.2024

8/8

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

V.Mohan, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mohan, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Great Heights Developers LLP Vs Additional Commissioner

Vehicle Components India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)

M/s.Kumaragiri Textiles Vs The Assistant commissioner (St)

M/S. Joshikaa Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/S. T.T. Energies Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

A Panneerselvam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu