Sundaram v. The Managing Director

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Petition No.9016 and 9017 of 2017 and WMP.Nos.9934 and 9935 of 2017 Sundaram .. Petitioner in W.P.9016/17 N.Thirunavukarasu .. Petitioner in W.P.9017/17 Vs.

1.The Managing Director, 2.The Southern Regional Manager, .. Respondents in W.P.9016/17 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thiruvalluvar District.

2.The Managing Director, 3.The Southern Regional Manager, ..Respondents in W.P.9017/17 Common Prayer:Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to dispose of the representations dated 19.10.2016 and 07.04.2017 and consequently direct the respondents herein not to shift or relocate TASMAC shop and bar to the proposed place of Asthalakshmi Nagar 2nd Main Road, Alapakkam, Chennai 116 near the petitioner's bar attached with TASMAC shop Nos.8708 and 8851 respectively. For Petitioner : Mr.Vimal B.Crimson in both W.Ps.

For Respondent : Mr.M.John Kennedy in both W.Ps.

Standing Counsel C O M M O N O R D E R Both these writ petitions are filed seeking for direction to the respondents to dispose the individual representations given by the petitioners dated 19.10.2016 and 07.04.2017, wherein and whereby,

they made a request for not shifting a TASMAC shop and relocating the same near the petitioners' bar attached TASMAC Shop Nos.8708 and 8851 respectively.

2. Mr.M.John Kennedy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. Though these Writ petitions are filed seeking for direction to the respondents to dispose of the petitioners' representations, I do not think that such prayer can be entertained by this court, in view of the fact that what is sought to be achieved by way of those representations, is not any statutory right conferred on the petitioner and on the other hand, it is evident on the face of the representations itself that these petitioners are trying to stall the location of another TASMAC shop near to their bar attached TASMAC shops.

3.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no statutory prohibition of locating a shop to nearby shops.

4.This court is not inclined to go into such rival contentions, as it is of the view the very representations made by the petitioners are

K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

vri totally misconceived and consequently, the very filing of the Writ Petitions is also not entertainable. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.

13.04.2017 Speaking/Non Speaking Index: Yes/No vri To 1.The Managing Director, 2.The Southern Regional Manager, 4.The District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Thiruvalluvar District.

W.P.Nos.9016 and 9017 of 2017

http://www.judis.nic.in http://www.judis.nic.in