P. Mohanram, v. The Sub Collector Cum

W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.02.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9616 of 2017 P.Mohanram ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Sub-Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Thasildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

3. Mrs.Valarmathi

4. Dr.K.S.Sameeran ... Respondents Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A2/0563/2017 dated 28.03.2017 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1,R2 & R4 : Mr.M.Ganesan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For R3 : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick

O R D E R

This writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order made by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.A2/0563/2017 dated 28.03.2017. 2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is running Rice and Flour Mill by name and style of " Mohanram Rice and Flour Mill" in Vaigai Nagar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. He obtained proper permission and license for running the Rice and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017 Flour Mill. The third respondent is the neighbour of the petitioner and he wanted to purchase the petitioner's Rice and Flour Mill and the same was refused by the petitioner. So, over the dispute, the third respondent filed a complaint under Section 133 Cr.PC stating that the Flour Mill is causing nuisance and requested to take steps to close the Flour Mill. The first respondent issued a notice on 23.01.2017 and show cause notice was also issued. Without following the proper procedure action was initiated. So, this writ petition is filed for writ of certiorari and quash the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.A2/0563/2017 dated 28.03.2017. 3.

When the matter was listed for arguments on the side of the parties a representation was made by the petitioner that he has shifted his residence from the place of occurrence and it also admitted by the third respondent. The third respondent also informed the Court, he has also shifted his residence from the locality. So, nothing survives in this matter for further adjudication and the petition has become infructuous.

4.Recording the said submission made by the both counsel, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-) To

1. The Sub-Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Thasildar, Paramakudi Taluk, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

+1 CC to Mr.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate (SR-3143[F] dated 03/02/2021 ) DSS TE : 01/03/2021 : 2P/4C W.P.(MD)No.12467 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9616 of 2017 03.02.2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2