Dismissed

M.Jayakumar v. the Commissioner,Madurai

Madras HC5 Oct 2017WP/29718/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to cancel his parking collection licence and claim a refund after paying a year's fee, relying on tender clauses for authority-initiated cancellations in public interest. The court held these clauses did not apply to voluntary withdrawal and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed; no costs awarded to the petitioner.

M.Jayakumar Vs the Commissioner,Madurai — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.10.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

W.P.No.29718 of 2003

M.Jayakumar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai. .. Respondents

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to cancel the licence granted in favour of the petitioner by the first respondent by his order dated 15.04.2003 and consequently direct the first respondent to return the licence amount after deducting 3 months fee.

¶12

For petitioner : M/s.M.Sriram

¶13

For respondents: Mr.P.Srinivas for R-1

¶14

Mr.R.Venkatesh, Govt. Advocate for R-2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to cancel the licence granted in favour of the petitioner by the first respondent by order dated 15.04.2003 and consequently direct the first respondent to return the licence amount after deducting 3 months' fee.

¶17

Subsequent to the issuance of the tender (auction) notice for the year 2003-2004, by Notification dated 31.01.2003 of the first respondent, by order dated 15.04.2003, the petitioner, being the highest bidder, was granted licence to collect the parking fee to the cycles, two wheelers and cars in the area notified in the auction notice. The petitioner submitted that he has been granted licence for a period of one year on payment of the entire amount in terms of the licence. However, he pleads that the licence may be cancelled and after deducting the three months' fee, the remaining amount due and payable to him, may be paid.

¶18

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

¶19

According to the petitioner, as per clause 29 of the tender notice, the petitioner is entitled to refund of necessary amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Clauses 28 and 29 of the tender notice, which reads as follows:

¶20

@ 28/ xUKiw brYj;jg;gl;l Vyj;bjhif vf;fhuzk; bfhz;Lk; ve;j NH;epiyapYk; jpUk;g junth my;yJ t$h bra;ag;glnth khl;lhJ/

¶21

29/ m) ve;j rkaj;jpYk; mtrpakhfj; njhd;wpdhy; Mizahsh; bghJ eyj;jpd; bghUl;L iybrd;!; epWj;jptpl tpUg;gg;gl;lhy; iybrd;!;jhuUf;F vGj;JK:ykhf mwptpg;g[ mDg;gp uj;J bra;a mjpfhuk; cz;L/ mJtiuapy; iybrd;!;jhuh; ele;jpUf;Fk; jtWjYf;fhf MizahsUf;F eltof;if vLf;f mjpfhuk; cz;L/ ghjfkd;dpapy; ,g;go bra;ag;gl;l iybrd;!;jhuh; iybrd;!;f;fhf Kd; gzkhf fl;oa[s;s iybrd;!; bjhifapy; mtUf;F tpfpjg;go (proportionate) Vw;gLk; bjhifia jpUg;gpf; bfhLg;gij jtpu ntW vt;tpj ,Hg;gPLk; bfhLf;fg;gl khl;lhJ/ nkw;brhy;yg;gl;litfspy; Mizahshpd; jPh;g;ng KothdJ/@

¶22

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶23

The licence itself is for a period of only one year. The above extracted Clause 29 will be applicable only in cases of cancellation of licence by the authority himself, that too, in public interest. Even as per Clause 28 extracted above, he is not entitled to refund of bid amount. The said two Clauses do not apply to the case on hand, as the petitioner herein volunteers to cancel the license due to his own disinterest. It is not a case of cancellation of license on account of public interest.

¶24

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made a representation, dated 06.05.2003 seeking refund of the balance tender amount, and he prayed that the same may kindly be considered by the respondent. More than 15 years have gone-by and directing the respondent to consider the said representation at this distant point of time, is not going to help any one, much less the petitioner. In fact, granting such relief to consider the said representation, will only lead to multiplicity of litigation, as any adverse order passed, will give a lead to next round of litigation.

¶25

For the reasons stated above, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶27

True Copy

¶28

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶33

The Commissioner of Police Madurai

¶34

+1 Cc to Mr.M. Sriram, Advocate sr 71729. +1 Cc to Govt. Pleader sr 72120.

¶35

W.P.No.29718 of 2003
RR(CO)
SP(06/11/2017)

¶36

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

M.Jayakumar v. the Commissioner,Madurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jayakumar v. the Commissioner,Madurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu Industrial Explosive Vs Union of India, Rep by Its

P.Karuppanan Vs the Junior Electrical Engineer

M.Rajasekaran Vs Assistant Commissioner

K.Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu

Bhagwandas Metals Limited. Vs 1.THE Chairman, Tamilnadu

Prakash Textiles Rep.by Its Vs 1.THE Secy. to Govt., Govt.of