Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

C Sundaram vs State Of Tamilnadu And Others

Madras High Court|04 January, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.Nos.21303 to 21305 of 2002 C. Sundaram, 5/16, Ponnayeekadu, Sangagiri R.S., Salem District. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.21303 of 2002 Ponrajendar Rep.by Power Agent A.K.Thangavel, Thirunagar Colony, Mandapathukadu, Sangagiri Town, Salem District.
2002 S.Chandraprakash, By Power Agent C.Sundaram, 5/16, Ponnayeekadu, Sangagiri R.S.
.. Petitioner in W.P.No.21304 of Salem District .. Petitioner in W.P.No.21305 of 2002 Vs
1. State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District.
3. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Dharmapuri.
4. M/s.Khoday India Limited, 54, Kannayakana Agrahara, Anjanapura Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore 560 062.
5. M/s.New Horizan Sugar Mills Limited, Ariyur, Kandamangalam Post, Pondicherry State, Represented by its Director .. Respon- dents Prayer in all W.Ps. : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Consti- tution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent comprised in proceedings C.No.04 / ADSP / PEW / DPI / 2002, C.No. 03 / ADSP / PEW / DPI / 2002 & C.No.02 / ADSP / PEW / DPI / 2002 respectively, dated 20.5.2002 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdic- tion and consequently forbear the respondents from in any manner seeking to interfere with the transportation of molasses from any place outside Tamil Nadu to any other place outside Tamil Nadu through the State of Tamilnadu.
Petitioner in all WPs. : Mr. Rahul Balaji Respondents in all WPs.: R1 to R3 – No Appearance R4&R5 – served, No Appearance COMMON ORDER It is brought to my notice that the issue raised in these Writ Peti- tions stands covered in favour of the petitioner vide decision of this Court in R. Sanjeevi Vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 (2013 SCC OnLine Mad 266) in W.P.Nos.21609 to 21611 of 2002.
2. As a matter of fact, the impugned proceedings are the same in the present cases as well as in the batch of matters disposed of by this Court in the matter cited above. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous peti- tions are closed.
04.01.2017
Index: Yes/No msr To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri District.
3. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Dharmapuri.
W.P.Nos.21303 to 21305 of 2002
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

C Sundaram vs State Of Tamilnadu And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
04 January, 2017
Judges
  • Anita Sumanth