Madras High CourtWP/27878/2022dismissed

P.Govindaraj v. The Commandant

2022-10-19Honourable The Acting Chief Justice,Honourable Mr Justice D. Krishnakumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR Writ Petition No.27878 of 2022 P.Govindaraj ..

Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commandant Tamil Nadu Special Armed Force VII Unit Kendikaampatti Area Angampatti Post, Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri District.

2. The Tahsildar Taluk Office, Pochampalli Krishnagiri District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Office of the Revenue Division Krishnagiri.

4. The District Revenue Officer Collectorate, Krishnagiri.

5. The District Collector District Collectorate Krishnagiri.

Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner's counsel dated 11.10.2021 and to stop this practice of selling crackers in the dangerous zone. For the Petitioner : Ms.Shyamala T.Rajan For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondents 2 to 5

ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the legal notice issued by the petitioner's counsel dated 11.10.2021 and to stop this practice of selling crackers in the dangerous zone.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent though said to have obtained license in the year 2015 for selling crackers and other fireworks during Diwali festival within their premises, he has set up stalls and carrying on business outside their

premises and therefore, he has sent a legal notice to all the respondents to stop the business of selling crackers. As no action has been taken on the same, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

3. We are unable to find any merit or justification in the allegation made by the petitioner for the simple reason that though the petitioner had stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that he came to know about the license obtained by the first respondent, he had not produced the same before this Court. Further, the petitioner cannot file a writ petition on assumption and presumption, without any definite case.

4. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.K.K., J.) 19.10.2022 Index : Yes/No kpl