Partly allowed

M.Deepan v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Madras HC1 Jun 2016WP/964/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petitions challenging upset price fixation orders for shops, the High Court held that due to delay, the challenge became academic as shops operated under old rates. The Court dismissed the petitions but directed the respondents to fix upset prices properly considering representations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions dismissed; direction issued to respondent to fix upset prices for shops within eight weeks by considering representations and ensuring revenue realization.

M.Deepan Vs The Tamil Nadu State Marketing — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 01.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.964 to 972 of 2015 and connected M.Ps

¶6

M.Deepan ...Petitioner in WPs.964 & 965/2015 N.Kuttailingam ... Petitioner in WP.966/2015 K.Satish Kumar ... Petitioner in WP.967/2015 R.Kaleeswaran ... Petitioner in WP.968/2015 S.Krishnamoorthy ... Petitioner in WP.969/2015 P.Udayakumar ... Petitioner in WP.970/2015 S.Senthil Kumar ... Petitioner in WP.971/2015 R.D.Veerasami ... Petitioner in WP.972/2015

¶7

Vs 1. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Rep. by The Board of Directors Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai-600 008. 2. Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Rep. by The Managing Director Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai-600 008. 3. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Rep. by The Senior Regional Manager L.L.A. Buildings Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 4. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Rep. by The District Manager Kancheepuram (North) Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents in all WPs

¶8

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

¶9

W.P.No.964 to 971 of 2015 : These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 4th respondent dated 16.12.2014 in Na.Ka. No.556/ R8/2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to fix the upset price for the petitioners Shop No.4485, 4103, 4503, 4119, 4499, 4073, 4176 & 4071 respectively at the rate of 2.5% on the Average Sale of the year 2013-2014.

¶10

W.P.No.972 of 2015 : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Bar upset price list of 2014 - 15 issued by the 4th Respondent dated NIL and quash the same only in so far it is relates to the petitioners Shop No.4452 at the rate of 2.5% on the Average Sale of the year 2013 - 2014.

¶11

Heard Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan , learned Counsel accepting notice for the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶12

2.In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek for quashing the orders passed by the fourth respondent dated 16.12.2014 and to direct the respondents to fix upset price for the petitioners Shops at the rate of 2.5%on the average sale of the year 2013-2014.

¶13

3.Identical prayer was considered by this Court in a batch of cases which were filed during 2014. After hearing the parties in detail, the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 23.12.2014, by directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representations in an objective manner and pass appropriate orders.

¶14

4.The petitioners herein also sought for similar relief in these Writ Petitions. However, these Writ Petitions are pending without any interim orders and in the interregnum the petitioners were operating the Shops by paying the charges at the old rate. In my view, by efflux of time, the challenge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the impugned proceedings has become academic.

¶15

5.In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it has been pointed that the respondents cannot fix the upset price based on the whims and fancies of the individuals, as it would result in loss of revenue.

¶16

6.The stand taken by the respondents is perfectly justified. Since, the respondents are bound to realise best possible revenue to the Government, while granting contracts in favour of an individual. Since the impugned orders were passed in 2014, this Court is of the view that the respondents should take immediate steps for fixing the upset price in a proper manner and bring the shops for re-auction. While doing so, representations given by the petitioners shall also be taken into considerations. The above direction be complied with by the respondents, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

The Writ Petitions are dismissed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar r p a To 1. The Board of Directors Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai-600 008. 2. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore Chennai-600 008. 3. The Senior Regional Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) L.L.A. Buildings Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

¶18

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

¶19

The District Manager Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) Kancheepuram (North) Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai, Kancheepuram.

¶20

+2cc's to Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.28993 +2cc's to Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Advocate, S.R.Nos.29193 & 29194

¶21

W.P.Nos.964 to 972 of 2015
PUR(CO)
CA(10/06/2016)

¶22

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

M.Deepan v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Deepan v. The Tamil Nadu State Marketing

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

Kanniyakumari District General Vs the Labour Officer

R.M. Rajesh Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Sri Venkatram Spinners (P) Vs the Chairman

S.Vetrivel Vs The District Manager

Kaleel Rahman Vs The Commissioner of Customs

K.Chinnasmy, Vs The Commissioner and Secretary