Madras High CourtWP(MD)/2464/2018dismissed

S.Vankatachalam, v. The Commissioner,

2025-09-16Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA Writ Petition(MD)No.2464 of 2018 S.Venkatachalam ..Petitioner Vs.

The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram.

... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 12/01/2018 in Na.Ka.No. 3759/2017/H1 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders renewing the D & O trade License for the Rice Mill of the petitioner situated at door number 6, Devipattinam Road, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Bharathan For Respondent : Mr.K.Saravanan 1/5

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.01.2018 in Na.Ka.No.3759/2017/H1 passed by the respondent. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders renewing the D & O Trade Licence for his Rice Mill situated at Door No.6, Devipattinam Road, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram.

2. The petitioner is running a rice mill. Earlier, he had filed W.P. (MD)No.23963 of 2016 in respect of the issue relating to the drainage system for his mill. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent did not receive professional tax and refused to renew the D & O Trade Licence. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.02.2017 enclosing two demand drafts, one for a sum of Rs.1,410/- towards the D & O Trade Licence fee and another for a sum of Rs.310/- towards professional tax, along with the renewal application. The respondent, however, returned the application stating that there was a blank in column 13. Thereafter, the petitioner resubmitted the application form on 04.11.2017 along with his representation and a fresh demand draft, clarifying that column 13 had been properly filled up earlier and also pointing out that the number and date in the building plan obtained in the year 1974 were not legible. However, the respondent has 2/5

returned the same with the impugned order dated 12.01.2018 stating that the number and date of order of installation of machineries had not been mentioned. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The respondent has filed a counter disputing the allegations raised by the petitioner.

4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the respondent had already raised certain queries. Since the petitioner did not comply with the same, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order. It is for the petitioner to comply with the queries raised. Without doing so, he has approached this Court. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to comply with the requirements as demanded in the impugned order. Upon such compliance, the respondent shall consider the petitioner's application for renewal of D & O Trade Licence and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law. No costs. 16.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No skn 3/5

To:- The Commissioner, Ramanathapuram Municipality, Ramanathapuram.

4/5

P.T.ASHA, J.

skn Writ Petition(MD)No.2464 of 2018 16.09.2025 5/5