Disposed

Ramesh v. District Manager

Madras HC14 Oct 2024WP/23229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the police to de-seal the petitioner's hotel allegedly sealed illegally by the TASMAC Manager. The court declined further engagement, noting the TASMAC outlet had closed and shifted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent police to de-seal the petitioner's shop and permit the petitioner to carry on business subject to law.

Ramesh Vs District Manager — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.23229 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated:14.10.2024

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

W.P.No.23229 of 2024 and M.P.No.25403 of 2024

Ramesh

.. Petitioner

/versus/

1.District Manager, IMFS Depot, TASMAC Ltd., SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Kulikadu, Cuddalore-5.

¶11

2.Sub Inspector of Police, Thittagudi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent police to de-seal the hotel Madhura Ban Purotta, situated at Perumulai Village, Thittagudi Taluk, Cuddalore District by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 31.07.2024 in accordance with law.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondents :Mr.S.Udayakumar, Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.23229 of 2024

¶17

ORDER This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to

¶18

de-seal the hotel of the petitioner herein, which has been allegedly sealed by the respondent police.

¶19

Counter filed by the respondents indicates that next to the petitioner's shop, there is a TASMAC outlet and bar. In the said bar, one Ramesh, who is the license holder, was selling liquor illegally. This petitioner is an associate with one Raja allowing the public to consume liquor in his street restaurant.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶21

the TASMAC, which was running near the shop of the petitioner itself is now closed and the allegation that to be used his premises to consume liquor is factually incorrect.

¶22

On perusal of the counter as well as the submissions made by

¶23

the petitioner, it appears that the shop of the petitioner has been unauthorisedly closed by the Manager of the TASMAC. Now the TASMAC

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.No.23229 of 2024

¶27

is shifted to the other place and sealing of the shop by the TASMAC Manager is illegal. Therefore, the respondent police is directed to de-seal the shop and permit the petitioner to carry on the business subject to law.

¶28

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶29

of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

14.10.2024

Index:yes/no ari

To:

1.District Manager, IMFS Depot, TASMAC Ltd., SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Kulikadu, Cuddalore-5.

¶34

2.Sub Inspector of Police, Thittagudi Police Station, Cuddalore District.

¶35

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶36

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.23229 of 2024

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

ari

W.P.No.23229 of 2024 and M.P.No.25403 of 2024

¶41

14.10.2024

¶42

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ramesh v. District Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh v. District Manager

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

R.Pushpa Vs State Represented by

Sammanasumary Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

G.Ravi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

B.Krishna Singh Vs the State Represented by Its

Saathaiaya, Vs Mr.Krishna Kumar

D.Jayaprakash Vs the Commissioner of Police