Allowed

K.Parvathy v. The Corporation of Chennai

Madras HC4 Sept 2014WP/20001/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Implementation Committee's order cancelling hawkers' allotments. The High Court held that once licences are issued by the Commissioner based on the Committee's recommendation, only the Commissioner has the power to cancel them. The Court directed the Commissioner to decide on cancellation and eviction after a hearing, maintaining the status quo pending such decisi

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation directed to take final call on cancellation of licences and eviction after hearing; status quo maintained for 15 days thereafter.

K.Parvathy Vs The Corporation of Chennai — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 04.09.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice and

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.20001 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶7

K. Parvathy
2. Vasanthakumari
3. E. Abibullah
4. Ramasamy
5. Balaraman
6. Sinneri
7. Selvarani
8. S. Balasubramanian
9. P. Chellasamy
10. Nagaraj
11. M. Govindaraj
12. Radhakrishnan
13. S. Vadivelu
14. V.S. Karuppasamy
15. Sureshkumar
16. Sathar
17. Puvammal
18. Azhagammal .. Petitioners
vs.
1. The Corporation of Chennai
rep. by its Commissioner
Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003.
2. The Chairman
Hawking Zone Implementation Committee
No.7/6, R.A.Puram, III Cross Street
Chennai 600 028.
3. The Zonal Officer
Zone – 5, Corporation of Chennai
No.61, Basin Bridge Road
Chennai 600 021.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

The State of Tamil Nadu

¶10

rep. by its Secretary Municipal and Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the order No. H.Z.I.C.C.No/051/14, dated 30.04.2014, issued by the Implementation Committee, the II respondent herein, cancelling the allotment of shops to the petitioners at M.C. Road, Chennai.

¶12

For Petitioners : Ms. D. Nagasaila
For Respondents : Mr. Master Ganesh Ramachandran
Standing Counsel for R1 to R3
Mr. S.T.S. Moorthy
Govt. Pleader for R4.
O R D E R
(Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶13

The question of eligibility of hawkers to hawk their goods from particular locations received the attention of this Court and an order was passed on 06.04.2006 in Writ Petition Nos.1049 of 2006 and connected matters. A number of directions were issued, including constitution of an Implementation Committee of Retired Judges. The power conferred on the Implementation Committee, inter alia, was as under:

¶14

“All the grievance in respect of the implementation of the Scheme shall be liable to be considered only by the Implementation Committee and no subordinate courts in the city shall take cognizance of any such complaint.”

¶15

It may be noticed that this was preceded by a scheme drafted by categorising Chennai into different zones for hawking purposes.

¶16

The petitioners before us were held eligible by the Implementation Committee and were allotted spaces in proceedings stated to have been held on 25.02.2011 and 19.08.2011 respectively. Apparently, some complaints were received. With the result, the Implementation Committee sought to review certain cases and in that process, issued show cause notice through the Zonal Officer on 23.08.2013, to show cause as to why allotment ought not to be cancelled. The explanation given by the petitioners herein was found to be unsatisfactory and despite the personal hearing granted, on 30.04.2014, the petitioners were issued with the impugned order to

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

surrender possession of the spaces within thirty days of the receipt of the order, by the Chairman, Implementation Committee.

¶19

The petitioners seek to raise various issues, including the fact that there was no such power conferred on the Implementation Committee to review cases. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the designated authority, to cancel any such licences to hawk would be, the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, which order, if adverse, would give rise to an appellate remedy.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 submits that the powers conferred on the Implementation Committee are wide enough and that its decision is final. Adequate opportunity was given to the affected petitioners, who could not give satisfactory explanation, resulting in the adverse orders. Personal hearing was granted and thus, those petitioners cannot make a grievance.

¶21

We thought to give a quietus to the matter. No doubt, the powers conferred on the Implementation Committee are wide and the objective was that hawking should take place in an organised manner in terms of the scheme prepared. In order to ensure proper implementation of the scheme, the Implementation Committee was constituted.

¶22

The point, however, remains that the allotment in these cases was made by the Implementation Committee, after due verification. The cause of the petitioners to be aggrieved arises from the reconsideration of those allotments. In the meantime, licences had already been granted by the Corporation and thus, action in pursuance of the recommendation of the Implementation Committee amounts to cancellation of the licences. We are, thus, of the view that it would be in the fitness of things that the designated authority under the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, takes the final call on the issue of cancellation of licences, the same having been issued by the designated authority, post the decision of the Implementation Committee. Once the licence is actually granted, its cancellation entails serious consequences, as also the issue of right of appeal of the affected party.

¶23

We hasten to add that we are not, in any manner, demeaning the process of the Implementation Committee. But, the provisions of the said Act, more specifically Section 365, requires the statutory power to be exercised in a particular manner. This is the reason why, it is not the Implementation Committee, which issued the licence, but the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, who issued the licence, on a decision of the Implementation Committee. Once the licence is issued, even if the Implementation Committee comes to the conclusion that it ought to be cancelled, the final decision has to

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

be with the Commissioner, especially when it would entail the eviction and removal of the space of those licensees, whose licences are cancelled.

¶26

The result of the aforesaid is that, we direct the Commissioner of the Chennai Corporation to take the final call on the issue of cancellation of licence and eviction of the petitioners, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The report of the Implementation Committee would, inter alia, be available for the benefit of the Commissioner. On such decision being taken, in case the petitioners are aggrieved, they would have a remedy in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

¶27

Since status-quo is continued in the mean time, the same would enure to the benefits of the petitioners till the decision is taken by the Commissioner and for a period of fifteen days thereafter.

¶28

Needless to say, the petitioners would have no right to sublet or part-let possession of their rights in the space.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ATR To 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600 003. 2. The Chairman Hawking Zone Implementation Committee No.7/6, R.A.Puram, III Cross Street Chennai 600 028. 3. The Zonal Officer Zone – 5, Corporation of Chennai No.61, Basin Bridge Road Chennai 600 021.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

The Secretary

¶32

State of Tamil Nadu Municipal and Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶33

1 cc to Ms. D. Nagasaila ,Advocate, SR.No.41768 1 cc to Mr. ,Advocate, SR.No.41668

¶34

W.P. No. 20001 of 2014

¶35

kk(co) pmk.15.9.2014

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Parvathy v. The Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Parvathy v. The Corporation of Chennai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Baby, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Balkis Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.v.Ramani Vs The Chairman

C.a.Pandiyan Vs The District Collector

R.Sekar Vs The Collector

P.Ettikkan Vs The Union of India