Writ Petition No. 7377 of 2011 · Madras High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarlanTo:1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PROHIBITION AND EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.3.2011CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.7377 of 20111 R.RAMAN B.SC. F.C.A. [ PETITIONER ] S-4 TNHB COMPLEX A BLOCK 180 LUZ CHURCH ROAD MYLAPORE CHENNAI 4 Vs1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PROHIBITION AND EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 92 THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CHEPAUK CHENNAI 53 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD(TASMAC), 4TH FLOOR C.M.D.A. TOWER II GANDHI IRWIN BRIDGE ROAD EGMORE CHENNAI 84 TAMILNADU BILLIARDS AND SNOOKER ASSOCIATION (REGD) NEW NO.318 OLD NO.240 AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI (LLOYDS ROAD) GOPALAPURAM CHENNAI 86[ RESPONDENTS ]Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent tocancel licence or to remove the Bar (permit Room) issued to the 4threspondent herein situated at premises of the Tamilnadu Billiards and Snooker Association (Regd.), New No.318, Old No.240, Avvai ShanmugamSalai (Lloyds Road), Gopalapuram, Chennai-600086 running against the Tamilnadu Liquor (License and permit Rules, 1981 by consideringpetitioner representation dated 23.12.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.S.Ravichandran For respondents : Mr.R.Thirugnanam Special Government Pleader for R2 Mr.Ravindran for R3
O R D E R Mr.R.Thirugnanam, the learned Special Government Pleader, takesnotice for the third respondent.
Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counselappearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it wouldsuffice, if the second respondent is directed to dispose of therepresentation, dated 23.12.2010, on merits and in accordance withlaw, within a specified period.
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalfof the third respondent, has no objection for such an order beingpassed by this Court.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on either side, the second respondent is directed todispose of the representation, dated 23.12.2010, on merits and inaccordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner, the fourth respondent and the other parties concerned, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of therepresentation, dated 23.12.2010, to the second respondent, alongwith a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of thematter.
Operative part
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarlanTo:1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PROHIBITION AND EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU FORT ST.GEORGE CHENNAI 9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CHEPAUK CHENNAI 53 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LTD(TASMAC), 4TH FLOOR C.M.D.A. TOWER II GANDHI IRWIN BRIDGE ROAD EGMORE CHENNAI 84 TAMILNADU BILLIARDS AND SNOOKER ASSOCIATION (REGD) NEW NO.318 OLD NO.240 AVVAI SHANMUGAM SALAI (LLOYDS ROAD) GOPALAPURAM CHENNAI 861 cc to Mr.S.Ravichandran, Advocate, Sr.No.205321 cc to Mr.J.Ravindran, Advocate, Sr.No.209071 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.21142Writ Petition No.7377 of 2011BKY {CO}TP/12.4.2011.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with the abovedirections
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.