Disposed¶42

P.Manimozhiyan v. the General Manager

Madras HC3 Jul 2026WP(MD)/13848/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aavin milk parlour licence cancellation; Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai; Booth No.8000, Veerapandi Village; automatic cancellation for non-operation beyond three months; expiry of three-year contract-basis licence; fresh application for renewal considered on merits; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018 with WMP (MD) No.12583 of 2018; status quo order dated 28.06.2018; M.Dhandapani, J.; Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; dated 03.07.2026; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the cancellation and compel resumption of operations not granted; instead, liberty given to submit a fresh application for renewal of the licence, to be considered on merits and in accordance with law; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

P.Manimozhiyan Vs the General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's Aavin Parlour (Booth No.8000) licence by order dated 18.06.2018 could be sustained, given that the three-year licence term had expired and the parlour was not operational as on date. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The licence granted to the petitioner was only for a period of three years and that period had already expired; although the petitioner challenged the cancellation before expiry of the licence period, the writ challenge could not result in restoration of the lapsed licence.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The recent photographs produced by the respondents disclose that the petitioner is not running the Aavin Parlour as on date.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the petitioner intends to continue the parlour, he may approach the respondents with a fresh application for renewal of the licence, and on receipt of such application the respondents shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution — Aavin Parlour, Booth No.8000, Veerapandi Village. Licence granted by the first respondent (Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin)) by proceedings dated 18.08.2017 on a contract basis for three years, after payment of Rs.5,000/- licence fee (Challan No. 19321 dated 10.08.2017). During 2018 the respondents concluded the parlour had not been run continuously and, invoking the licence term that non-operation beyond three months attracted automatic cancellation, cancelled the licence by proceedings Na.Ka.No.1073/Ma.1/2018 dated 18.06.2018. Status quo was ordered by this Court on 28.06.2018. At the hearing the respondents produced recent photographs showing the parlour non-functioning and surrounded by bushes. The Court held that the three-year licence term had already expired and that the petitioner was not running the parlour as on date; the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to submit a fresh application for renewal, to be considered on merits and in accordance with law. No costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. M.Dhandapani, J.; decided 03.07.2026.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018 and

¶7

WMP (MD) No.12583 of 2018

P.Manimozhiyan

... Petitioner(s)

vs.

1.The General Manager, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai – 20.

¶12

2.The Deputy General Manager, Marketing Department, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai – 20.

¶13

3.The Zonal Manager, Marketing Department, Theni Zone, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin),

¶14

1/7

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018

¶17

SIDCO, Theni District.

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking direction to call for the records pertaining to impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1073/Ma.1/2018 dated 18.06.2018 issued by 1st Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to permit the petitioner commence the operation of Aavin Parlour Bearing Booth No.8000, as per license issued earlier by 1st Respondent.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mithun Chakravarthi For R1 : Mr.J.Devasenan For R3 : Mr.R.Ganesh Prabhu

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Challenging the licence cancellation order dated 18.06.2018, passed

¶23

by the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

¶25

petitioner is a degree holder and has been unable to secure employment. With a view to generating self-employment, the petitioner came to know that an Aavin

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018

¶29

Parlour bearing Booth No. 8000 at Veerapandi Village had remained nonoperational for quite some time. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14.07.2017 to the first respondent seeking licence to run the said Aavin Parlour. After scrutinising the application, the first respondent directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards licence fees. The petitioner accordingly remitted the amount under Challan No. 19321 dated 10.08.2017. Thereafter, the respondents granted a licence in favour of the petitioner to run the Aavin Parlour by proceedings dated 18.08.2017 on a contract basis for a period of three years. During the year 2018, the respondents concluded that the petitioner had not been running the parlour continuously and as per the terms of the licence, if the parlour remained non-operational for more than three months, the licence was liable to be cancelled automatically. Accordingly, the respondents cancelled the licence by the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2018. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court granted an order of status quo by order dated 28.06.2018.

¶30

3/7

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, pursuant to the order of status quo granted by this Court, the petitioner has been running the Aavin Parlour in accordance with the original licence conditions.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, as on date, the Aavin Parlour is not functioning and is completely surrounded by bushes. In support of the said contention, the respondents have produced recent photographs before this Court.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the licence granted to the petitioner was only for a period of three years and the said period has already expired. Though the petitioner challenged the order of cancellation before the expiry of the licence period, the photographs produced by the respondents disclose that the petitioner is not running the Aavin Parlour as on date.

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.13848 of 2018

¶40

In such circumstances, if the petitioner intends to continue the

¶41

parlour, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the respondents by submitting a fresh application for renewal of the licence and on receipt of such application, the respondents shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶42