K.Raju v. Tamil Nadu State Marketing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.03.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN W.P.Nos.9210 to 9212 of 2015 K.Raju ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9210/15 N.Rajappa ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9211/15 S.Kumaraguru ... Petitioner in W.P.No.9212/15 Vs

1. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Rep. by The Managing Director Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai-8.

2. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Rep. by The Senior Regional Manager L.L.A. Building, Anna Salai Chennai-2.

3. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Rep. by The District Manager Kancheepuram (North) Industrial Estate Thirumazhisai Chennai-600 123 Kancheepuram Dt ... Respondents in all WPs Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith reopen the TASMAC Wine Shop No.4100, 4128 and 4096 respectively or any other TASMAC Wine Shop at the petitioners premises bearing Door No.207 G.S.T. Road Chromepet Chennai-44, Door No.682/48 Nehru Nagar G.S.T. Road Kadapperi Tambaram Chennai-45 and Door No.317 G.S.T. Road Chromepet Chennai-44, respectively. For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj For Respondents : Mr.Muthuraj

O R D E R

Heard Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Muthuraj, learned counsel, who took notice for the respondents and with their consent, the writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith reopen the TASMAC Wine Shop Nos.4100, 4128 and 4096 respectively or any other TASMAC Wine Shops at the petitioners respecitve premises at Chennai.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petitions on the ground that the licence period of the petitioners has already expired in 2013 and hence the petitioners have no locus-standi to file these writ petitions.

4. In reply to the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made representations and the same are pending and hence a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider and pass orders on the same within the stipulated period.

5. This Court is intended to grant finality to the litigation and not to create litigations by passing an order, allowing the petitioners request to dispose of the representations, since the licence period has already been expired as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, which fact has not been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Hence, I find no reason to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioners in these writ petitions as well as the verbal request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners across the Bar to direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representations of the petitioners.

The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

rg To

1. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Rep. by The Managing Director Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai-8.

2. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Rep. by The Senior Regional Manager L.L.A. Building, Anna Salai Chennai-2.

3. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) Rep. by The District Manager Kancheepuram (North) Industrial Estate Thirumazhisai Chennai-600 123 Kancheepuram Dt +1cc to Mr.S.Muthuraj, Advocate, S.R.No.18117 +3cc's to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.18153 W.P.Nos.9210 to 9212 of 2015 KM(CO) CA(13/04/2015)