P.Manimozhiyan v. The General Manager

O R D E R Challenging the licence cancellation order dated 18.06.2018, passed by the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a degree holder and has been unable to secure employment. With a view to generating self-employment, the petitioner came to know that an Aavin Parlour bearing Booth No. 8000 at Veerapandi Village had remained non-operational for quite some time. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 14.07.2017 to the first respondent seeking licence to run the said Aavin Parlour. After scrutinising the application, the first respondent directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards licence fees. The petitioner accordingly remitted the amount under Challan No. 19321 dated 10.08.2017. Thereafter, the respondents granted a licence in favour of the petitioner to run the Aavin Parlour by proceedings dated 18.08.2017 on a contract basis for a period of three years. During the year 2018, the respondents concluded that the petitioner had not been running the parlour continuously and as per the terms of the licence, if the parlour remained non-operational for more than three months, the licence was liable to be cancelled automatically. Accordingly, the respondents cancelled the licence by the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2018. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court granted an order of status quo by order dated 28.06.2018.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, pursuant to the order of status quo granted by this Court, the petitioner has been running the Aavin Parlour in accordance with the original licence conditions.

¶4Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, as on date, the Aavin Parlour is not functioning and is completely surrounded by bushes. In support of the said contention, the respondents have produced recent photographs before this Court.

¶5Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the licence granted to the petitioner was only for a period of three years and the said period has already expired. Though the petitioner challenged the order of cancellation before the expiry of the licence period, the photographs produced by the respondents disclose that the petitioner is not running the Aavin Parlour as on date.

¶7In such circumstances, if the petitioner intends to continue the parlour, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the respondents by submitting a fresh application for renewal of the licence and on receipt of such application, the respondents shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.

¶8This writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes PKN To

1.The General Manager, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai – 20.

2.The Deputy General Manager, Marketing Department, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai – 20.

3.The Zonal Manager, Marketing Department, Theni Zone, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), SIDCO, Theni District.

M.DHANDAPANI

,J.

PKN DATED : 03.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP (MD) No.12583 of 2018 P.Manimozhiyan ... Petitioner(s) vs. 1.The General Manager, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai – 20. 2.The Deputy General Manager, Marketing Department, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), Madurai – 20. 3.The Zonal Manager, Marketing Department, Theni Zone, Madurai District Cooperative Milk Producers Union (Aavin), SIDCO, Theni District. ... Respondent(s) PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus seeking direction to call for the records pertaining to impugned order in Na.Ka.No.1073/Ma.1/2018 dated 18.06.2018 issued by 1st Respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to permit the petitioner commence the operation of Aavin Parlour Bearing Booth No.8000, as per license issued earlier by 1st Respondent. For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mithun Chakravarthi For R1 : Mr.J.Devasenan For R3 : Mr.R.Ganesh Prabhu