Mariyappan v. The General Managert
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 27.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Mariyappan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The General Manager, TASMAC, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri.
3.The District Manager, TASMAC, Dharmapuri District.
... Respondents Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2024. For Petitioner : Ms.G.Ranjani, for Mr.K.Thiruvengadam For Respondent : Mr.P.Balathandayutham, 1/6
Special Government Pleader for R2 Mr.M.Sekar, Standing counsel for R1 and R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 01.07.2024.
2. Mr.M.Sekar, learned Standing counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P.Balathandayutham, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in the present case, a representation was filed by the petitioner on 01.07.2024 requesting the respondents not to put up the TASMAC Wine Shop in the petitioner's village. However, the same was not at all considered by the respondents till date. Hence, this petition has been filed. 2/6
4. In reply, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr.M.Sekar, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that since no acknowledgment card was furnished by the petitioner, the availability of such representation with the respondents is doubtful and hence, they request this Court to pass appropriate orders directing the petitioner to furnish a copy of the said representation, so as to enable the concerned Authoritythe Managing Director, TASMAC, to consider and dispose of the same.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, it appears that a representation dated 01.07.2024 has been filed by the petitioner requesting the respondents not to put up any TASMAC Wine Shop in his village. However, the same was not considered by the respondents till date. Further, it was submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that no such representation 3/6
was available with the respondents.
7. In view of the above, this Court directs the petitioner to furnish a copy of the representation dated 01.07.2024 to the Managing Director of TASMAC. Thereafter, the Managing Director of TASMAC is directed to consider the said representation dated 01.07.2024 and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of submission of a copy of this said representation by the petitioner.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
27.08.2024 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No nsa 4/6
To 1.The General Manager, TASMAC, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri.
3.The District Manager, TASMAC, Dharmapuri District.
5/6
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa 27.08.2024 6/6