Dismissed

A.Lalitha, v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP(MD)/11869/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged the rejection of her application to run an Aavin Milk Parlour inside a government hospital campus. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding merit in the reason that the Milk Union was in severe rent arrears and the allotted location caused traffic congestion and public disturbance. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. Liberty granted to seek permission from the second respondent for an alternative place; third respondent directed to consider such request within two weeks.

A.Lalitha, Vs the Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

A.Lalitha

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai – 2.

¶11

2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai – 2.

¶12

3.The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Madurai Corporation, Madurai – 2.

¶13

4.The General Manager, Aavin, A-1301, The Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited, Sivagangai Main Road, Sathamangalam, Madurai – 625 020.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the order of the third respondent in proceeding No.Ma.Va.2/02251/19 dated 14.03.2019 and quash the same for petitioner only as illegal and consequently directing the 1^st and 3^rd respondents to grant permission to order the petitioner to run Aavin Milk parlour at the near and entrance of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai as per the first respondent's order dated 20.11.2017 and 06.03.2019.

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Jeyaram For R – 1 : Ms.M.Aasha Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For RR 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Sivabalan For R – 4 : Mr.K.Prabhu

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 14.03.2019 thereby rejecting the request made by the petitioner seeking permission to run the Aavin Parlour booth inside the campus of the Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai on the ground that the fourth respondent is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 2,13,51,879/- for the Aavin parlours.

¶22

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side

¶23

and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶24

3.The petitioner was granted a licence to run Aavin milk

¶25

parlour at the entrance of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner requested the

¶26

second respondent seeking permission to run Aavin Milk Parlour at 2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶29

the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. It was rejected by the third respondent on the ground that there are rental arrears from the fourth respondent. That apart, the petitioner has given permission to run a Aavin Milk Parlour booth in the Siva Shanmugalai Street, Vaithiyanatha Iyer Street junction in which there is traffic congestion and also it would cause disturbance to the general public.

¶30

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶31

submit that though the petitioner was granted a licence to run a Aavin Milk parlour, the petitioner was not allotted any place to run the Aavin Milk parlour.

¶32

5.On perusal of the order passed by the third respondent this Court finds no infirmity or illegality since the fourth respondent is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.2,13,51,879/- and the place which was allotted in favour of the petitioner to run Aavin Milk Parlour would cause disturbance to the public and transport. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the third respondent, dated 14.03.2019 Hence, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

3/6

¶35

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶36

6.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However,

¶37

the petitioner is at liberty to seek permission from the second respondent for an alternative place. On receipt of the said request, the third respondent is directed to consider the same and pass orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

03.12.2024

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ps

¶40

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

¶41

4/6

¶42

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶43

¶44

1.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai – 2.

¶45

2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai – 2.

¶46

3.The Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Madurai Corporation, Madurai – 2.

¶47

4.The General Manager, Aavin, A-1301, The Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Limited, Sivagangai Main Road, Sathamangalam,

¶48

Madurai – 625 020.

¶49

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

¶50

5/6

¶51

W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶52

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶53

¶54

Order made in W.P(MD)No.11869 of 2019

¶55

03.12.2024

¶56

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

¶57

6/6

A.Lalitha, v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Lalitha, v. the Commissioner of Police

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

M.Mahalingam, Vs the District Collector

Arangulavan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.S. Rajendran Vs the Executive Officer

P.Santhosh Kumar, S/O.Pandi, Vs the Regional Manager

A.Sujitha Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.

Senthil Kumaran Vs The Inspector General of Registration