Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M. RAMESH BABU versus THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M. Ramesh Babu v. The District Collector - W.P.NO.281 OF 2002 AND W.P.NO.282 OF 2002 [2002] RD-TN 446 (9 July 2002)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 09/07/2002

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM

W.P.NO.281 OF 2002 AND W.P.NO.282 OF 2002

AND WP.NOS. 283 to 284 OF 2002

and

W.P.M.P.Nos.29411 to 29414 OF 2002

M. Ramesh Babu .. Petitioner in WP.Nos.281/2002 and 282 of 20 Mahendrakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.283/2002 V. Chakravarthy .. Petitioner in W.P.284/2002 Vs.

1. The District Collector,

Collectorate,

Trichirapalli District.

2. The Assistant Commissioner

(Excise), Trichirapalli District.

3. The Senior Regional Manager,

TASMAC, Ponnagar,

Trichirapalli District. .. Respondents in all the WPs 4. M. Prabhakaran .. Respondent in WP.No.281/02 5. R.V. Bharathan .. Respondent in WP.No.282/02 6. T. Chinnaiyan .. Respondent in WP.No.283/02 7. A. Jesuraj .. Respondent in WP.No.284/02 Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioners : Mr.K.S. Sankara Murali for

Mr.A. Saravanan

For Respondents : Mr.K. Mahendran

1 to 3 Special Government Pleader Respondent-4 in : Mr.K.S. Viswanathan

WP.281 to 284/02

Respondent-4 in : Mr.K. Kumaresh Babu for

WP.282 of 2002 Mr.A. Jinasenan

:O R D E R



In view of the limited issue raised, the main writ petitions themselves are taken up for disposal and they are being disposed of by the following order.

2. Petitioners, who are unsuccessful in getting IMFL licence, questioning the licence granted in favour of the fourth respondent in all the writ petitions, have filed the above writ petitions.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. In view of the limited issue raised, it is unnecessary to refer the factual matrix as arrayed in the affidavit of the petitioners and the counter affidavit of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing my attention to Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retain Vending) Rules, 1989 would contend that it is incumbent on the part of the District Collector, Trichirapalli District, the first respondent herein, to issue notice in Form I-A inviting application for the grant of privilege of retail vending of liquor. According to him the first respondent has not complied with the said provision. It is brought to my notice by the counsel for the petitioners that without issuing notice in Form I-A, the District Collector has made a Press statement informing that additional shops would be opened at Thurayur municipality and in the Musiri, Thottiam, Katuputhur, S. Kannanur and Mettupalayam town panchayats and in 14 village panchayats. It is the grievance of the petitioners that for non compliance of the notice in Form I-A, they were deprived of applying for licence to run IMFL shop, accordingly the licence issued in favour of the fourth respondent is liable to be quashed.

5. It is true that it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to invite application by issuing notice in Form I-A and the said notice in Form I-A shall be published in one Tamil Daily and one English daily in that district by the Collector in advance inviting the application for grant of privilege and also inform the last date for receipt of applications. Though the present notice is not in terms of Form I-A, the first respondent has conveyed that new shops would be opened in certain places and the last date of receipt of the application forms is November 19. It is true that the said statement or information cannot be construed as sufficient compliance in terms of Rule 5(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retain Vending) Rules, 198 9 and Form I-A. However, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent has brought to my notice the information relating to opening of additional IMFL shops published in Malai Murasu on 16.11.2001, Malai Malar on 17.11.2001, Dinamalar on 18.11.2001, Daily Thanthi on 18.11.20 01 and Sunday Express on 18.11.2001. It is also brought to my notice that pursuant to the information, several persons applied for the same. Learned Special Government Pleader has also brought to my notice that notice was also published in the Notice Board of the Office of the Collectorate on 16.11.2001. He has produced the file relating to publication of notice in the notice board of the Collectorate. It is also brought to my notice that licence expires by 31.7.2002.

6. Taking note of all the above aspects, though the first respondent has not strictly complied with the Rules referred above, in the light of the details furnished in various dailies, it is taken that there is sufficient compliance of statutory provisions. I have already stated that licensing period is going to end by 31.7.2002. At this juncture, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent. This Court hopes that atleast in future the first respondent will adhere and comply with the statutory provisions referred to above. With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WPMP.Nos.29411 to 290414 of 2002 are closed.

Index : Yes

Internet: Yes

dpk

To

1. The District Collector,

Collectorate, Trichirapalli District.

2. The Assistant Commissioner

(Excise), Trichirapalli District.

3. The Senior Regional Manager,

TASMAC, Ponnagar,

Trichirapalli District.

Order in WP.Nos.281 to

284/02 and WPMP.Nos.29411 to

and 29414 of 2002




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.