A.Ganesan vs Tasmac Ltd on 7 December, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Ganesan vs Tasmac Ltd on 7 December, 2017

Bench: R.Mahadevan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 07.12.2017  

CORAM   

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN             

W.P(MD)No.20957 of 2017   


A.Ganesan                                                       ...  Petitioner
Vs.
                                
1.TASMAC Ltd,  
   Rep.by its Managing Director,
   4th Floor, CMDA Tower ? II,
   Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008. 

2.The District Manager,
   TASMAC Ltd, 
   Plot No.C104,
   SIPCOT Complex,  
   Thoothukudi.                                         ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
refund the caution deposit of Rs.1,07,300/- collected from the petitioner
within a time frame fixed by this Court.

!For Petitioner                 : Mr.R.Subramanian 
For Respondents         : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu 
                
:ORDER

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to refund the caution deposit of Rs.1,07,300/- collected from the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court.

2.Heard both sides.

3.By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being the successful bidder in the tender invited by the second respondent during the year 2014, in respect of the TASMAC No.10105, had deposited the caution deposit and deposit amount and as such, he was doing his business as per the tender condition in the said shop. But, all of a sudden the said TASMAC shop was closed by the respondents, before the expiry of the licence period. Hence, the petitioner approached the authorities by way of representations to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioner. All the steps taken by the petitioner for getting back the amounts deposited by him ended vain. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

5.The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the representation of the petitioner would be considered on merits within the time stipulated by this Court.

6.Considering the limited scope of the relief sought in this writ petition, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all the interested parties, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

1.The Managing Director, 4th Floor, CMDA Tower ? II, Egmore, Chennai ? 600 008.

2.The District Manager, TASMAC Ltd, Plot No.C104, SIPCOT Complex, Thoothukudi.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court