Madras High CourtWP/1742/2016disposed of

Annai Theresa Mahalir v. The District Collector

2016-01-28Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.P.No.1742 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.1523 & 1524 of 2016 Annai Theresa Mahalir Suyaudhavi Kuzhu rep. by its member Tmt. Nalini, No.6/46, Perumbakkam Colony, Thiruvallur Town and Taluk, Thiruvallur District-602 001.

... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

2. The Commissioner, Food Supply and Consumer Protection Department, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3. The District Issuing Authority, O/o.the District Collector, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

4. The Taluk Issuinjg Authority, O/o.the District Collector, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

5. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

6. The Secretary, Agricultural Production Co-operative Society, Thiruvallur.

... Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the order in Na.Ka.13891/2009 S.2 dated 23.12.2013 passed by the first

respondent and quash the same is illegal, improper, unreasonable against the rule of law and natural justice and thereby, directing the respondents to re-allot the Fair Price Shop No.AC002, Perumbakkam, Thiruvallur District in the name of the petitioner's Suya Udhavi Kuzhu to enable them to run the said shop.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidharan For Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, Nos.1 to 6 Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

Heard Mr.M.V.Muralidharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

2.The petitioner is aggrieved against the decision made by the respondents in transferring the Fair Price Shop from the Women Self Help Group to the Co-operative Department. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by impugned order dated 23.12.2013, which is the subject matter of the writ petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the impugned order, it has been stated that the petitioner's request cannot be considered, since there was a lack of training. He would further submit that the members of the petitioner's group has now completed the training and therefore, in view of the said development, petitioner's representation dated 18.01.2015 may be directed to be considered, notwithstanding the impugned order passed by the first respondent.

4.Considering the same, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar DP