Madras High Court
T.Kannadasan vs The District Collector on 30 January, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024
and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1709 and 1710 of 2024
T.Kannadasan ... Petitioner
versus
1. The District Collector,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
2. The District Manager,
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC)
Madurai North,
Madurai.
3. A.Bharathiraja
4. S.Sathish ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for
the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd
respondent in Na.Ka.No.979/2023/A3 and quash the same and
consequently, direct the 2nd respondent not to permit the 3rd respondent
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024
to run the Bar situated at Survey Nos.206/1C and 206/1B1
Thaniamangalam Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District, before
termination or conclusion of rental period between the petitioner and 4th
respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundarapandian
For R1 : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh,
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.H.Arumugam,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 17.12.2023, granting licence in favour of the 3rd respondent to run the TASMAC Bar.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has participated in the tender floated by the 2nd respondent/TASMAC for running a Bar. He further submits that the petitioner is having an agreement with the land owner, in which, the TASMAC Bar situates. However, without considering his agreement, the 2nd respondent/TASMAC has identified the 3rd respondent as the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024 highest bidder and issued the licence to the 3rd respondent by order dated 17.12.2023. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the second respondent/TASMAC, submits that the persons, who are intending to run the Bar, have to obtain a “No Objection Certificate” from the landlord. In this case, all the participants were issued with “No Objection Certificate” by the 4th respondent/landlord. The petitioner is also having a rental agreement with the 4th respondent.
Similarly, the 4th respondent has also entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent. In the tender floated by the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent was declared as the Highest Bidder and the licence was issued to him to run the bar. Aggrieved over that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. This Court considered the rival submissions made.
3/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024
5. It appears that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent have participated in the tender floated by the second respondent, where, the 3rd respondent has been ranked as the 1st highest bidder and the petitioner has been ranked as the 3rd highest bidder. When the petitioner has also participated in the tender and has been ranked as the 3rd highest bidder, he is not entitled to question the licence issued to the 3rd respondent. Further, the 3rd respondent is also having a rental agreement with the 4th respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the second respondent.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.01.2024 ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024 To
1. The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.
2. The District Manager, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) Madurai North, Madurai.
5/6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy W.P.(MD)No.1677 of 2024 30.01.2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis