S GANESAN Vs. DISTRICT MANAGER TASMAC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 02.08.2010 made in W.P.No.3134 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE facts of the present case lies in a narrow campus. THE appellant was granted a licence to sell eatables and snacks and collect empty bottles in the bar attached to the IMFL retail vending shop No.4376, located at door No.6, GST Road, Tambaram Sanatorium. It appears that the fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.24170 of 2009 for a direction upon the respondents therein from in any manner establishing a retail vending IMFL shop at first street, Kamatchi Colony, Tambaram Sanatorium. THE said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.12.2009, with a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to consider the representation submitted by the fourth respondent herein. According to the fourth respondent, the retail vending IMFL shop was within the prohibited distance from Hospital, Schools, Temples, Colleges etc. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the District Collector issued notice dated 18.09.2009, calling upon the appellant herein as well as the fourth respondent to attend a personal hearing and passed an order, directing that the shop should be shifted, failing which the bar licence would be cancelled. It is the case of the appellant that the shop was located after ascertaining its suitability by conducting a proper inspection and the entire action is on account of the malafide intentions of the fourth respondent. THE appellant filed aforementioned writ petition in W.P.No.3134 of 2010, questioning the order directing shifting of the shop, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 02.08.2010. Aggrieved by such order, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) FURTHER, it is brought to our notice that the licence issued in favour of the appellant was cancelled on 14.09.2010. It is seen that the appeal itself though filed on 14.09.2010, the date on which the licence was cancelled, the same was admitted by this Court on 16.09.2010 and while admitting the appeal, one of the Division Bench of this Court directed the maintenance of status-quo as it was asserted by the appellant and he is continuing the business. Thus, the cancellation of the licence have been done on 14.09.2010, and the question of the appellant being entitled to continue in business does not arise.