Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Home Secretary v. VCan Network - WA. No.3230 of 2004 [2007] RD-TN 1164 (28 March 2007)


Dated: 28.03.2007


The Honble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM


The Honble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN

Writ Appeal No.3230 of 2004

1.The Home Secretary to

Government of Tamil Nadu,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,


2.The Director General of Police,

Kamarajar Salai,


Chennai-4. .. Appellants Vs.

V-Can Network (P) ltd.,

rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing

Director R.Radhakrishnan,

17-A, Muthuramalaingam Street,

Rajaji Colony, Saligramam,

Chennai-93. .. Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.05.2002 made in W.P.No.16170 of 2002. For Appellants : Mr.P.Subramnain, Government Advocate For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J.) The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.05.2002 made in W.P.No.16170 of 2002, in and by which, the learned single Judge, considering the grievance of the writ petitioner and affording sufficient safeguard to the official respondents, disposed of the said writ petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellants. The respondent, though duly served notice through Court, has not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging the counsel.

3. The observations made by the learned single Judge in paragraph 4 are relevant, which reads as follows: "Considering the grievance of the petitioners, of course a blanket mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted, but the respondents are directed not to interfere with the regular and lawful business of the petitioner, so long as the business is within the ambit of the rules and regulations. It the authorities find any illegal activities, equally it is open to them to take action after issue of show cause notice."

4. It is clear from the said order that if the writ petitioner carries lawful business, the same cannot be interfered with by the official respondents. On the other hand, if the authorities find that the activities of the respondent-writ petitioner are illegal and contrary to the statutory provisions or orders of the Government, they are free to take action against them, after issuing show cause notice. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the said order cannot be faulted with.

5. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.

raa To

1.The Registrar,

Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,


2.The Registrar,

Debt Recovery Tribunal-1,



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


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 |

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