High Court Madras High Court

A.Nagendran vs The Director on 25 November, 2008

Madras High Court
A.Nagendran vs The Director on 25 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 25/11/2008

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

W.P(MD)No.2835 of 2008
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008

A.Nagendran	  		  	    	. . . Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director,
  Medical Rural Health
  Services and Family Welfare,
  Chennai - 6.

2.The Joint Director,
  Medical Rural Health
  Services and Family Welfare,
  Virudhunagar.  				. . . Respondents

PRAYER

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the proceedings
of the second respondent dated 14.05.2007 and quash the same and further
directing the second respondent to allow the petitioner to put up Aavin Milk
Parlour at Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur.

!For Petitioner	... Mr.R.V.Rajkumar
^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar
		    Government Advocate

					  * * * *	
:ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to call for the proceedings of the
second respondent dated 14.05.2007, quash the same and further to direct the
second respondent to allow the petitioner to put up Aavin Milk Parlour at
Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr.D.Sasikumar,
learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner as aired by the learned counsel for the
petitioner placing reliance on the averments in the affidavit accompanying the
writ petition, is to the effect that the petitioner applied to the second
respondent for permitting him to conduct his sale of Aavin Milk and Milk
Products in the premises of Government Hospital, Srivilliputtur, but the same
was rejected by the first respondent under the misconception that the petitioner
was not in possession of Agency Certificate issued by the Aavin Managing
Director, Madavaram, Chennai. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner did
not possess Agency Certificate, whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that he already got one and applied for renewal of the same and he
would also get it soon and on getting such renewal, the respondents shall be
directed to permit him to conduct business in that premises.

5. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. As revealed by the proceedings dated 24.07.2007 in
Na.Ka.No.3313/M1/06 and 09.05.2006 in Na.Ka.No.783/M1/2005, he was appointed as
agent of the Virduhunagar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited,
Virudhunagar. Hence, the following direction is issued:
On production of the renewed Agency Certificate, the second respondent
shall issue necessary permission to the petitioner to sell Aavin Milk and Milk
Products in the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

smn

To

1.The Director,
Medical Rural Health
Services and Family Welfare,
Chennai – 6.

2.The Joint Director,
Medical Rural Health
Services and Family Welfare,
Virudhunagar.