Ganesh P v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3986 and 3988 of 2024 P.Ganesh ... Petitioner versus

1. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

2. The Senior Divisional Manager/ District Revenue Officer, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Anna Nagar, Madurai.

3. The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

... Respondents 1/6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.COLR/14598/2023/S1 dated 25.01.2024 and quash the same as devoid of merits and consequently, direct the respondents not to disturb the functioning of TASMAC shop No.10902 at D.No.14/35-2, Thiraviyam Nagar, Thippanampatti Village, Tenkasi Taluk & District based on the petitioner's representation dated 16.02.2024. For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh For R1 : Mr.A.Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader For R2 and R3 : Mr.S.Sivanesan, Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner is the owner of the building and he has leased out the same to the 3rd respondent for conducting a TASMAC shop. By the impugned order dated 25.01.2024, the first respondent/the District Collector, Tenkasi, has granted permission to shift the TASMAC shop from the petitioner's building to another place. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

2/6

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and the reasons stated therein are very baseless and this order has been passed at the instance of the 3rd respondent.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for TASMAC submits that as there is a leakage in the roof and the petitioner is having a poultry farm adjacent to the TASMAC shop, which causes health hazard to their customers, the TASMAC has taken a decision to shift the shop from the petitioner's building to another place.

4. This Court considered the rival submissions made.

5. The petitioner has entered into a lease agreement with the 3rd respondent in the year 2017 and pursuant to the same, a TASMAC shop has been established in the petitioner's premises. According to the 3/6

learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, there is a leakage in the roof and the petitioner is having a poultry farm adjacent to the TASMAC shop, which causes health hazard to their customers and therefore, the TASMAC has taken a decision to shift the TASMAC shop from the petitioner's building to some other place. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner can work out his remedy with the 3rd respondent, based on the lease agreement.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 23.02.2024 ogy NCC : Yes / No.

Index : Yes / No.

Internet : Yes / No.

4/6

To

1. The District Collector, Tenkasi District, Tenkasi.

2. The Senior Divisional Manager/ District Revenue Officer, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Anna Nagar, Madurai.

3. The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 23.02.2024 6/6