Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.CHINNAPAIYAN versus STATE OF TN

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.Chinnapaiyan v. State of TN - WA.No.793 of 2002 [2007] RD-TN 276 (23 January 2007)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 23.01.2007

Coram:-

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

W.A. No.793 of 2002

and

W.A.M.P.No.1599 of 2002

M.Chinnapaiyan .. Appellant -vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. By its Secretary,

Health and Family Welfare Dept.

Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

2. Director of Public Health and

Preventive Medicine and

State Food (Health) Authority,

College Road, Chennai 6. .. Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order made in W.P.No.23556 of 2001 dated 21.12.2001.

For Appellant : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,S.C. For Mr.S.Silambanan

For Respondents: Mr.K.Elango,Spl.G.P.

J U D G M E N T



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)

The above writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.12.2001 made in W.P.No.23556 of 2001, in and by which the learned Judge by clarifying certain aspects, disposed of the writ petition along with the other connected writ petitions.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. Even at the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the very same notification, viz., Notification dated 19.11.2001 was challenged before the Supreme court and by judgment reported in (2004)7 SCC 68 [Godawat Pan Masala Products I.P.Ltd., and another vs. Union of India and others], the same notification was quashed. By taking us through the said judgment, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court holding that the notification is bad in law, the conclusion arrived by the learned single Judge cannot be accepted and the writ appeal has to be allowed. There is no dispute as to the said aspect on the side of the respondents. Accordingly, following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2004)7 SCC 68 (cited supra), this writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

gms

To

1. The Secretary,State of Tamil Nadu,

Health and Family Welfare Dept.

Fort St.George, Chennai 9.

2. Director of Public Health and

Preventive Medicine and

State Food (Health) Authority,

College Road, Chennai 6.


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.