Madras High Court
WP CRL./2525/2026 of S.Arunkumar Vs The Commissioner of Police on 2 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.Crl.No.2525 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012270162026}
S.Arunkumar
S/o. Selvam
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police
Commissioner Office,
Annadhanapatti,
Salem City, Salem - 636 006.
2. The Inspector of Police
Suramangalam Police Station,
Salem District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.06.2026 and consequently, issue necessary No Objection Certificate to enable the petitioner to run Narpavi Saloon, Beauty Parlour and Ayurvedic Spa, situated at D.No.1550/2, Omalur Main Road, Jagir Ammapalayam, Z-1 Suramangalam, Salem District in accordance with the Trade Licence granted by the Salem City Municipal Corporation, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.A.Rahul
For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Heard Mr.A.Rahul for the petitioner and Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar for the respondents.
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar reports that the second respondent police have inspected the premises of the petitioner’s spa at Suramangalam, Salem, and have concluded that the same is in compliance with law.
3. Mr.S.Yogaraja Sekar submits that the petitioner faces one difficulty. According to him, the licence granted under Rule 289(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, for the said spa stands in the name of one Manikandan, S/o.Subramani, whereas the petitioner is one Arunkumar.
4. Mr.A.Rahul states that the petitioner Arunkumar and Manikandan are partners.
5. This is a petty issue that can easily be resolved. Instead of directing the second respondent to forward its “No Objection Certificate” through the office of the first respondent to the Commissioner of Salem City Municipal
Corporation in the name of Arun Kumar, a direction can be issued to the second respondent to forward the “No Objection Certificate” in the name of Manikandan itself. This will ensure that the licence under Rule 289(1) and the “No Objection Certificate” stand in the name of the same person. The necessary exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from today. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 02-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ms To
1. The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office, Annadhanapatti, Salem City, Salem - 636 006.
2. The Inspector of Police Suramangalam Police Station, Salem District.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J. ms W.P.Crl.No.2525 of 2026 02-11-2026