A. Subramanian v. The Commissioner Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL A.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioner tea stall namely Sri Naganathar Tea Stall at No.1/1, 1/2, Pattathammal Street, Pudukottai main road, Airport, Trichy, during night hours and consider his representation dated 15.02.2025 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.61 Labour welfare and skill development (K2) dated 02.06.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioner tea stall namely Sri Naganathar Tea Stall at No.1/1, 1/2, Pattathammal Street, Pudukottai main road, Airport, Trichy, during night hours and consider his representation dated 15.02.2025 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.61 Labour Welfare and Skill Development (K2), dated 02.06.2022. 2.According to the petitioner he is running a tea stall in the name and style of Sri Naganathar Tea Stall at No.1/1, 1/2, Pattathammal Street, Pudukottai main road, Airport, Trichy. He got license from Trichy Municipality and the same was duly renewed. He has also got license from the Food & Safety Department to sell the food products. While so, the second respondent insisted the petitioner not to open the Tea Stall beyond 11.00 p.m. As per G.O.Ms.No.
61 Labour Welfare and Skill Development (K2), dated 02.06.2022, he is entitled to run the Tea Stall 24 hours. However, the second respondent threatened the petitioner not to run the shop beyond 11.00 p.m. In this regard, he has given a representation on 15.02.2025, but the same was not considered. Hence, this petition has been filed.
2/5
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner's Tea Stall located in the main area and the customers used to park vehicles in the road, thereby, causing hindrance to the general public. Therefore, the second respondent advised the petitioner not to park the vehicles in the road and they have not insisted the petitioner to close the shop beyond 11.00 p.m. If the petitioner is ready to conduct Tea Stall without causing hindrance to traffic, they have no objection to run the Tea Stall. 4.Since the prayer of the petitioner is to consider the representation of the petitioner and the same is pending with the second respondent, this Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.61 Labour Welfare and Skill Development (K2), dated 02.06.2022 and in accordance with law. 3/5
5.With the above observations and direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
21.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, Airport Police Station, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4/5
P.DHANABAL , J.
PNM ORDER IN 21.03.2025 5/5