N.Ramadoss Naidu vs. The District Collector
Held
The Court accepted the report of the Advocate Commissioners, which found that TASMAC Shop No. 5315 is located 841 meters from the State Highways. This distance exceeds the presumed prohibited distance, thus negating the primary ground for relocation. The Court reasoned that since the factual basis for relocation was not substantiated by the Advocate Commissioners' report, there was no impediment for the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation. Consequently, the respondents (District Collector, Senior Regional Manager of TASMAC, and Deputy Collector/District Manager) were directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2017 and pass necessary orders within six weeks, after hearing the petitioner and any rival claimants. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, N. Ramadoss Naidu, operates TASMAC Shop No. 5315 in Thiruparankundram, Madurai District. This shop, along with three others, was slated for relocation due to public opposition and allegations of being situated within 500 metres of a residential area and town. To ascertain the shop's precise location, the High Court appointed two Advocate Commissioners. These commissioners inspected the site on 07.07.2017, with the presence of Taluk Surveyors and other officials, and submitted a report detailing the shop's distance from the State Highways and other landmarks. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 12.06.2017 seeking to continue running the shop.
Key Issues
1. Whether the TASMAC Shop No. 5315 is situated within the prohibited distance from State Highways, thereby necessitating its relocation, as per the allegations of the public and rival claimants? The petitioner argued that the shop is located in a commercial area and its operation should continue. The respondents, representing the State and TASMAC, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment, but their actions indicated a move to relocate the shop based on the aforementioned allegations. The court's primary concern was to verify the factual basis of the relocation grounds through independent inspection.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 27.07.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.11997 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).No.9231 of 2017 N.Ramadoss Naidu
..Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC Limited, Madurai District, Madurai. 3.The Deputy Collector/ The District Manager, Madurai South, Madurai District. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 5.The Inspector of Police, Thiruparankundaram Police Station, Madurai, Madurai District. 6.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Madurai, Madurai District. ..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 to continue to run the TASMAC Shop No.5315, situated at 247, Periya Ratha Veethi and GST Main Road, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2017. For Petitioner :Mr.C.Sundaravadivel
For Respondents :Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Muniyasamy O
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.