Madras High Court
The District Manager vs Sudha on 4 March, 2022
W.A.No.432 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.03.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.432 of 2022
The District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited
(TASMAC),
Tiruppur District. .. Appellant
Vs
1.Sudha
2.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District.
3.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tiruppur North Taluk,
Tiruppur District. .. Respondent s
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.06.2021 in W.P.No.959 of 2021.
____________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.432 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
For the Respondent : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondent Nos.2 to 4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 28.06.2021 limited to the imposition of
cost on the appellant, whose action was not even under challenge.
2. It is the case where the appellant-TASMAC allotted a shop to
be run in the premises of the writ petitioner/non-appellant. The
permission for it was given by the District Collector, Tiruppur and after
running the shop for three months, the District Collector has passed an
order for closure of the shop. The order of the District Collector was
challenged by the writ petitioner/non-appellant, as the shop was not
opened in violation of any of the provisions and cannot be closed only
on the ground of the objection by the people in the vicinity. In any
case, according to the appellant, the cost could not have been imposed
by the learned Single Judge, as it was the action of the District
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.432 of 2022
Collector and not of the appellant to close the shop. They are still
willing to continue the shop in the premises and even otherwise, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged by the writ
petitioner/non-appellant by maintaining an appeal, which is pending.
3. The writ appeal is pressed limited to the imposition of cost.
We find reason to relax the cost and for that no notice is required to be
sent to any of the parties because cost has been imposed against the
appellant and otherwise, the writ petitioner/non-appellant has also
challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, keeping in
mind the aforesaid, the part of the judgment imposing cost of
Rs.25,000/- on the appellant is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed
to the extent indicated above. However, the writ petitioner/non-
appellant is permitted to seek revival of this appeal by making an
application, if she remains aggrieved by this order. There will be no
order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.3197 of 2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (D.B.C., J.)
04.03.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.432 of 2022
To:
1.The District Collector,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.
3.The Tahsildar,
Tiruppur North Taluk,
Tiruppur District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.432 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
bbr
W.A.No.432 of 2022
04.03.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
