Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 4360 (MAD)

G. Govindaraj v. Chairman, Tasmac

2012-10-17

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had visited a TASMAC Shop, on 11.09.2011, along with his friend. They had purchased two beer bottles of 'Bullet' brand. The petitioner was shocked to find foreign particles inside the beer bottle, which is manufactured by the fourth respondent and is owned by the fifth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had fallen ill and he had been mentally upset for having had the beer from the bottle, which contained certain foreign particles. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred a representation, dated 03.08.2012, to the first and the second respondents herein. However, no action had been initiated by the first and the second respondents, pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, dated 03.08.2012. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner before this Court, is not maintainable. They had submitted that there is no obligation on the part of the first and the second respondents to conduct an enquiry against the fourth and the fifth respondents herein, based on the allegations made by the petitioner. 4. They had further submitted that as there were certain factual disputes with regard to the claims made by the petitioner. Such disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Court in the present Writ Petition. However, it may be open to the petitioner to move the appropriate forum to establish his claims, as per law. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents 1 to 3, and on perusal of the records available, this Court finds that the petition filed by the petitioner, is not maintainable as there are disputed questions of fact, which are to be proved, by evidence, with regard to the claims made by the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to establish his claims before the appropriate forum or authority, if so advised, in the manner known to law. No costs. Therefore, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioner to establish his claims before the appropriate forum or authority, if so advised, in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.