Disposed

Neelakandan S M v. The Managing Director

Madras HC11 Jan 2024WP(MD)/164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a TASMAC bar licence granted to the fifth respondent on the landowner's no-objection certificate, where the petitioner claimed rights under an agreement and had a pending civil suit against the landowner. The court held the dispute was civil in nature and closed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to work out remedies in the pending suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

Neelakandan S M Vs The Managing Director — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.182 and 184 of 2024

¶7

S.M.Neelakandan ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),

¶10

Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),

¶12

Trichy Zone, Trichy.

¶13

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),

¶14

Thanjavur District.

¶15

N.Nargeesh Banu

¶16

Sathishkumar

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶19

1/6

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶22

seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.518/A3/2023 dated 21.12.2023 and quash the same as illegal and further direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reinitiate the tender in respect of shop No.7874, which is situated at old No. 233/5B2A and New S.No.233/66A, Mavudukurichi East Revenue Village, Peravurani Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Muniasamy For R1 to R3 : Mr.H.Arumugam, Standing Counsel For R5 : Mr.Mohammed Imran

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The licence granted to the 5^th respondent for running a TASMAC Bar by the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.518/A3/2023, dated 21.12.2023 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a

¶27

TASMAC Bar is intended to be established at old Survey No. 233/5B2A (new Survey No.233/66A), which belongs to the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has put up a superstructure in the said survey number, based on the agreement between the petitioner and the 2/6

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶30

4^th respondent. Therefore, the petitioner is also having right over the property. However, the 5^th respondent was granted licence to run a TASMAC Bar, based on the No Objection Certificate issued by the 4^th respondent. He further submits that there is a Civil Suit in O.S.No.73 of 2023 pending between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravurani.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1

¶32

to 3 submits that the petitioner is not having any right to question the licence granted to the 5^th respondent. The petitioner neither is the owner of the property in the above said survey numbers nor participated in the auction. If the petitioner is having any agreement with the 4^th respondent, then, he has to work out his remedy only with the 4^th respondent. He also points out that the petitioner has not made any averment that the petitioner has put up the superstructure in the said survey number.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶36

This Court considered the rival submissions made.

¶37

It appears that the petitioner is having a title dispute with the 4^th respondent. Admittedly, the land belongs to the 4^th respondent. However, the petitioner claims that the superstructure in the said land has been put up by him and he has also filed a Civil Suit as against the 4^th respondent in O.S.No.73 of 2023. Therefore, the petitioner can work out his remedy in O.S.No.73 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peravurani.

¶38

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶39

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

11.01.2024

¶41

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶45

¶46

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),

¶47

Egmore, Chennai.

¶48

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),

¶49

Trichy Zone, Trichy.

¶50

The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC),

¶51

Thanjavur District.

¶52

5/6

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶55

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶56

ogy

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.164 of 2024

¶58

11.01.2024

¶59

6/6

¶60

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

Neelakandan S M v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Neelakandan S M v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Esakki Vs The Commissioner

S Srinivasagam Vs The Commissioner

M.Khadhar Moideen, Vs the District Revenue Officer

Rajendiran .a Vs The Senior Regional Manager

M.Esther Vimalarani, Vs the Commissioner

P.Murugesan Vs the District Collector