Petitioner challenged dismissal of license renewal request by Municipal Corporation. Court found shop taken over by new operator, rendering renewal infructuous, though deposit challenge remains open.
Dismissed as infructuous as the shop has been taken over and a new canteen is running.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.16519 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
WP.No.16519 of 2012 & W.P.M.P.No.1 of 2012
K.P.Nasar ... Petitioner
Vs
... Respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed, under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.10070/2010/A1(May) dated 13.06.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the license for running the Hotel, Kitchen and store room with fresh rates in the light of changed circumstances.
W.P.No.16519 of 2012
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Purushothaman For Respondents : Mr.K.Magesh for R1
Mr.Karthick Jeganath for R2 Government Advocate
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.10070/2010/A1(May) dated 13.06.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to renew the license for running the Hotel, Kitchen and store room with fresh rates in the light of changed circumstances.
2 . The contention of the writ petitioner is that despite the stay order has been granted by this Court, the 1st respondent had called for a tender. Though the petitioner had paid the caution deposit of Rs.10,40,000/- for the first year, the rent could not be paid due to the fact that the buses were not regularly coming inside the bus stop. Therefore, the license has been cancelled on 13.06.2012. Hence the writ petition.
W.P.No.16519 of 2012
3.
3. The learned Government Advocate Pleader appearing for the 1st
respondent submitted that now the shop has been taken over and Amma Canteen is running. The main prayer is only to renew the license. Since the termination order has been issued, the question of renewal of license does not arise at all. Therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition.
4 . In such view of the matter, the prayer sough for by the petitioner is infructuous and hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the adjustment of the amount deposited at the time of tender. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.12.2022
Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking
uma
W.P.No.16519 of 2012
To,
W.P.No.16519 of 2012
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
uma
WP.No.16519 of 2012 and W.P M.P No.1 of 2012
14.12.2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for renewal of license becomes infructuous once the shop has been taken over and a new canteen is running.
K.P. Nasar
The Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
The Regional Transport Authority cum District Collectorate Hosur Road Coimbatore
N. Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
