Partly allowed

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service v. Assistant commercial Manager

Madras HC15 Jun 2022WP/7018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order requiring the petitioner to pay 100% licence fee during the pandemic. It held the respondent must recall the order, afford a personal hearing, and reconsider the petitioner's representation for a pro-rata fee based on reduced footfall.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 24.01.2022 was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration on merits after affording a personal hearing, with final orders to be passed within 12 weeks.

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service Vs Assistant… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.06.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶5

W.P.No.7018 of 2022 and WMP Nos.7052 and 7053 of 2022

¶6

M/s Meenakshi Catering Service, Rep by its Proprietor, D.Manikandan, having Office at No.2/355, Venkatespuram, Vandalur, Chennai-600048.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Assistant Commercial Manager-cumThe Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railways, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in M/C.79/GMU-44/MS dated 24.01.2022 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and further directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to run the A1 category catering stall GMU 44 in Platform No.5/6 at Chennai Egmore Junction along with platform vending by paying pro rata license fee of 54%.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Karthik

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.Avinash Krishnan Ravi - CGSC

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2022 calling upon the petitioner to pay 100% licence fee from 15.11.2021. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that in respect of other commercial branches

¶16

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

¶17

of Southern Railways including Thiruchirapalli and Madurai, the license holders were permitted to pay only pro rata license fee for the to COVID-19 pandemic period. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the license holders of Chennai Division alone have been directed to pay 100% of the license fee which amounts to discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondent very well knows that during the period, for which, the license fee has been demanded under the impugned order, the foot fall of passengers travelling through trains was drastically less, but, according to the petitioner, despite the said fact, the petitioner has been directed to pay 100% of the license fee from 15.11.2021.

¶19

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in this writ petition and in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, they have admitted the difficult conditions faced by the license holders during the Government imposed lockdown. In paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that they have decided to collect license fee on foot fall basis upto 31.03.2022 and therefore, they have stated that they will consider the petitioner's representation seeking for reduction in license fee.

¶20

In view of the subsequent development, which is recorded in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the impugned order passed by the respondent has to be necessarily quashed and the matter remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting him the right of personal hearing.

¶21

The petitioner, prior to the filing of the writ petition, had given a representation to the respondent, requesting the respondent to consider payment of the license fee by him at 54% instead of 100%. In view of the subsequent development, the respondent has to now consider the said representation afresh on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner.

¶22

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after affording a fair hearing to the petitioner including granting him the right of personal hearing and the respondent shall pass final orders within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

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

¶24

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

¶30

The Assistant Commercial Manager-cumThe Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railways, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶31

+2ccs to Mr.C.Karthik, Advocate, S.R.No.36070

¶32

W.P.No.7018 of 2022

¶33

PL[co] NSK/27/06/2022

¶34

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

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service v. Assistant commercial Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service v. Assistant commercial Manager

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.Bismillah Ready Mix concrete and Traders Vs The Chairman cum Managing Director

A.Sathish Kumar Vs The Honourable Ombudsman

The Management Vs the State Information Commissioner

S.Rabik Raja Vs The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

M/s.Meenakshi Catering service Vs Assistant commercial Manager

P.Udaya Shankar Babu Vs The Executive Engineer and