M/S.Kgf Hotel v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN M/s.KGF Hotel Represented by its Owner Stephen Arockiaraj, S/o.Amaladas Theradi Street Tiruvannamalai Town Tiruvannamalai - 606 601 ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
2. Superintendent of Police SP Office, Vengikkal Tiruvannamalai Town Tiruvannamalai - 606 601
3. The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Tiruvannamalai Town Tiruvannamalai - 606 601 ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner representation dated 27.01.2025 for permit the petitioner to run the hotel namely KGF Hotel situated at
Theradi Street, Tiruvannamalai Town, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601 during late night hours.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kumaresan For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed by the petitioner to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.01.2025 regarding permitting the petitioner to run the hotel namely KGF Hotel situated at Theradi Street, Tiruvannamalai Town, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601 during late night hours.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having a hotel in the Girivalam path in Tiruvanannamalai near the Arunachaleswarar Temple. Outstation people, Foreigners and devotees of Arunachaleswarar Temple used to come their and during Girivalam, round the clock people used to come there and the petitioner is providing support to the pilgrims by offering comfortable food, snacks and refreshments. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be restricted to run the hotel in a specific time. Since the 3rd respondent police was preventing the customers of the petitioner and also harassing the
petitioner not to run the hotel after 10 p.m., the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to run the hotel without any interference by the 3rd respondent police. However, there was response. Hence, the present petition is filed.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that based on the representation, the petitioner was summoned for appearing before the respondent police, however, there was no response from the petitioner.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is seen that based on the petitioner's representation, the respondent police have sent summons to the petitioner asking the petitioner to appear before the respondent police on a particular date, whereas the petitioner has not appeared before the respondent police and co-operated with the respondent police to enable them to pass orders on the petitioner's representation. After giving representation, without appearing before the respondent police, the petitioner has approached this Court. This Court finds that the petitioner has not filed the present petition with clean hands.
6. However, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the respondents and on receipt of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with law. After giving fresh representation, if the petitioner receives any summons from the respondent police, the petitioner should appear and co-operate with the respondent police for enquiry.
7. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
23.06.2025 ksa-2 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
1. The District Collector Tiruvannamalai District Tiruvannamalai
2. Superintendent of Police SP Office, Vengikkal Tiruvannamalai Town Tiruvannamalai - 606 601
3. The Inspector of Police Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Tiruvannamalai Town Tiruvannamalai - 606 601 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
ksa-2 23.06.2025