Disposed

M.M.Sunil Dath, v. Union of India

Madras HC8 Dec 2016WP/29000/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of two writ petitions concerning a fruit stall license conflict. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the petitioner for a small shop allotment without considering prior fines imposed without show-cause notice, within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's request for a new shop allotment within 15 days without taking into consideration of the earlier fines imposed without notice.

M.M.Sunil Dath, Vs Union of India — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 08.12.2016 Coram The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶2

W.P.Nos.29000 and 32134 of 2016 and WMP Nos.25077 and 25078 of 2016 in W.P.No.29000 of 2016

M.M.Sunil Dath

.... Petitioner in

both W.Ps.

Vs.

1.Union of India, Owning Southern Railway, Rep. By its General Manager, Chennai 600 003.

¶8

2.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Division, 2^nd floor, NGO Annexe, Park Town, Chennai 600 003. .... Respondents in both W.Ps.

¶9

Prayer in W.P.29000/16 :Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records leading to the issue of proceedings bearing No.M/C.79/Catering/GMU/S-9 (FFJS) MAS dated 03.08.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to accept the affidavit dated 06.06.2016 submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent interms of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 29.01.2016 made in Civil Appeal No.618-620 of 2016 (Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & Ors Vs S.C.R. Caterers, Dry fruits, fruit juice stalls welfare association & anr) and renew the license in favour of the petitioner for a further 5 years period on the basis of reasonable increase of License fee in respect of Fruit and Fresh Fruit Juice Stall S- 9/MAS situated at Platform No.8/9, Chennai Central Railway Station without reference to the alleged fine imposed on the petitioner without showcause notice and enquiry in violation of natural justice.

¶10

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

¶11

Prayer in W.P.32134/16 :Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of declaration declaring the fines and warnings issued against the petitioner on various occasions without show cause notice and enquiry in violation of natural justice in respect of Fruit and Fresh Fruit Juice Stall S-9/MAS situated at Platform No.8/9 Chennai Central Railway Station are unconstitutional Null and Void and consequently cannot be taken into account for considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of his Licencee in respect of Fruit and Fresh Fruit Juice Stall S-9/MAS situated at Platform No.8/9 Chennai Central Railway Station for a further 3 year period.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sridhar in both W.Ps.

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar

¶14

in both W.Ps. Standing Counsel for Railway

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has come up with these writ petitions for the reliefs stated therein.

¶17

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is running a fruit and Fresh fruit juice stall in Chennai Central Railway Station under license from 05.08.2010 and he is paying the license fee without any default. Thereafter, under the Catering Policy 2010, the second respondent took over the stall with effect from 24.01.2011 and entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 31.01.2011. Though the petitioner extended his license and paid fine imposed by the respondent, the second respondent on 04.06.2016 sealed the stall of the petitioner and passed an impugned order dated 03.08.2016, rejecting the claim for renewal of the license of the petitioner in respect of his shop for further period of 5 year. Aggrieved against the same, he has filed this writ petition.

¶18

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is only a petty shop holder and he has no other shops in the railway. Though the respondent imposed fine many times without any show cause notice, the petitioner accepted and paid them. Hence, the petitioner is eligible for renewal of his existing license. He further contended that the petitioner may be reconsidered by the authority concerned to allot him a small shop afresh. Even for a similarly placed person, the respondent extended the lease for shop.

¶19

4.Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the tender was already called for in which, the petitioner

¶20

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

¶21

was also participated. The question of consideration depends upon the results of the tender.

¶22

5.Heard both sides.

¶23

6.After hearing both sides, the only ground stated by the petitioner is that he is only a petty shop holder and has no other shops and that the earlier fines imposed without notice have been accepted and paid by the petitioner. The respondents also extended the lease for similarly placed persons. In such view of the matter, the petitioner may be reconsidered to allot him a small shop on any fresh terms to be fixed by the authority concerned. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of a shop, if he is otherwise eligible, within a period of 15 days without taking into consideration of the fine. With the above direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶24

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vri
To
1.Union of India,
Owning Southern Railway,
Rep. By its General Manager,
Chennai 600 003.
2.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai Division,
2 nd floor, NGO Annexe,
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003.
+1 cc to M/s.K.Sridhar Advocate sr 72443
+1 cc to Mr.P.T.Ramkumar Advocate sr 72620
W.P.Nos.29000 and 32134/16

¶25

aa23/12/2016

¶26

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

M.M.Sunil Dath, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Sunil Dath, v. Union of India

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

Mahalakshmi Nursing Home Vs The District Appropriate

N.Kannan Vs The Tahsildar

A.Arulappan Vs The District Collector

V.R.Somasundaram, Managing Vs The Commissioner

K.Sakthivel Vs The District Collector

G.Gunasekaran Vs The District Collector