Disposed

K.Naveen Krishna, v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Nov 2021WP/2638/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a licensed canteen operator seeking to restrain government authorities from permitting another vendor to shift his canteen location. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as there were no contractual restrictions against shifting, but directed the authorities to review rent disparities between the two vendors.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Directed respondents to investigate and decide on rent disparity to ensure uniform rent for tenants.

K.Naveen Krishna, Vs The Secretary to Government — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.11.2021

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

W.P.No.2638 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.2589 of 2017

¶6

K.Naveen Krishna ...Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The Secretary to Government, Health Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶9

The Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Madras Medical College, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings and Maintenance, Medical Division, Madras Medical College, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶11

Sudharsan Babu

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, prayed for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, seeking to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the fourth respondent to shift the canteen in the place of old E.B. Office Building situated in the Madras Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For R1 to R3 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.G.Veerapathiran

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed seeking to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the fourth respondent to shift the canteen in the place of old E.B. Office Building situated in the Madras Medical College and Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital.

¶18

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted license to run the canteen at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital by virtue of the G.O.Ms.No.766 dated 02.08.2012 and fixed the rent to the tune of Rs.2,10,269/- per month and he was allotted the place nearby old operation theatre. The fourth respondent was also running the canteen at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital in the old building from 1999 onwards. While being so, the petitioner got reliable information that, the fourth respondent is going to shift his canteen, to the existing canteen in the place of E.B. Office, which is nearer to the petitioner's canteen. If the respondents 1 to 3 permitted the fourth respondent to run the canteen in the E.B. Office place, the business of the petitioner would get affected. Therefore, he filed the present Writ Petition seeking to restrain the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the fourth respondent to shift the canteen to the E.B Office building.

¶19

3.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that, the building where the fourth respondent's canteen situated is in a depilated condition, therefore, the same is going to be demolished and the new building for the department of Hepatology and liver transplantation was proposed to be constructed. Therefore, the fourth respondent was permitted to shift his canteen to the E.B Office building.

¶20

4.The learned Government Advocate further submits that the fourth respondent has been running his canteen at the Hospital campus from 1999, whereas, the petitioner was granted license only from the year 2012. There are so many canteens functioning inside the campus of the respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner's canteen is one among them. There was no prescribed terms and conditions, at the time of allotment of canteen to the petitioner that, no new allotment of canteens or shifting of the canteens within the campus, will not be done. Therefore, it is decision of the respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner cannot question the same. Hence, there is no merits in the present Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

5.The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent

¶22

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

¶23

would submit that the fourth respondent has been granted lease in the year 1999 and initially, he was running the canteen in the old building. Now, since the respondents 1 to 3 have taken a decision to demolish the building, where the fourth respondent's canteen was functioning, he shifted his canteen to the E.B Office building, as per the decision of the respondents 1 to 3. Subsequently, the rent was also increased. Further, he submits that the fourth respondent has already shifted his canteen to the new place on 03.02.2017 itself, therefore, the Writ Petition has becomes infructuous.

¶24

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent.

¶25

7.Considering the rival submissions and the perusal of the documents, it appears that there are more than one canteens functioning within the campus of respondents 1 to 3 and the petitioner's canteen is one among them. The fourth respondent also granted license to run the canteen in the campus of the respondents 1 to 3 from the year 1999. Since the respondents 1 to 3 have decided to demolish the old building, where the fourth respondent's canteen was functioned and construct a new building for the department of Hepatology and liver transplantation, the fourth respondent was permitted to shift his canteen to the new building, which is nearer to the petitioner's canteen.

¶26

8.Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 have allowed only the petitioner to run the canteen in the particular place, but, one among the few canteens. It also appears that on 03.02.2017 itself, the fourth respondent shifted his canteen to the new place. Since there is no prescribed terms and conditions between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 that, no new allotment of canteens or shifting of the canteens within the campus, the petitioner cannot question the decision of the respondents 1 to 3 about shifting of the canteens. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition to restrain the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the fourth respondent to shift the canteens within the campus.

¶27

9.One more contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been paying a sum of Rs.2,10,369/- per month as rent. Whereas, the fourth respondent has been paying only a sum of Rs.8,200/- as rent after obtaining order from the Civil Court, which would be a great loss to the respondents 1 to 3. In view of the above, the respondents 1 to 3 is directed to look into this huge disparities in fixation of rent to the petitioner and the fourth respondent and decide the issue, so as to enable the tenant of the premises will pay

¶28

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

¶29

uniform rent, which would ultimately not cause any loss to the respondents 1 to 3.

¶30

10. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

rst

¶36

To:

¶37

The Secretary to Government,

¶38

Health Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George,

¶39

Chennai - 600 009.

¶40

The Dean,

¶41

Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,

¶42

Madras Medical College, Park Town,

¶43

Chennai - 600 003.

¶44

The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Buildings and Maintenance, Medical Division, Madras Medical College,

¶45

Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

¶46

+1cc to Mr.G.Veerapathiran, Advocate, S.R.No.58707

¶47

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.59461

¶48

W.P.No.2638 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.2589 of 2017

¶49

PMK(CO) SU(06/12/2021)

¶50

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

K.Naveen Krishna, v. The Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Naveen Krishna, v. The Secretary to Government

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

M/s.Akash Poly Pack, Vs The Director

A. Siddiq Vs The Assistant District officer

Dr.J.Venkatesh, Vs The Registrar

M/s.Sakthi Steel Industries Vs The Chairman and Managing

Students-Parents Welfare Vs Ministry of Human Resources

V.Elangovan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu