M.Kanagaraj Vs. the District Collector and the President, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1169112
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnJul-09-2014
JudgeM.JAICHANDREN
AppellantM.Kanagaraj
RespondentThe District Collector and the President,
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:09. 07.2014 coram the honourable mr.justice m.jaichandren and the honourable mr. justice r.mahadevan w.a.(md)no.880 of 2014 to w.a.(md)no.882 of 2014 and m.p(md)nos.1,1 and 1 of 2014 w.a.(md)no.880 of 2014: m.kanagaraj ... appellant/petitioner vs. the district collector and the president, thoothukudi district welfare committee, thoothukudi. ... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under clause 15 of the letter patent act, against the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in w.p(md)no.8595 of 2014. !for appellant ... mr.veera kathiravan ^for respondent ... mr.a.k.baskarapandian, special govt. pleader w.a.(md)no.881 of 2014: k.sankar ... appellant/ petitioner vs. the district collector and the president, thoothukudi district welfare committee, thoothukudi. ... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under clause 15 of the letter patent act, against the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in w.p(md)no.8600 of 2014. for appellant ... mr.veera kathiravan for respondent ... mr.a.k.baskarapandian, special govt. pleader w.a.(md)no.882 of 2014: k.sankar ... appellant/petitioner vs. the district collector and the president, thoothukudi district welfare committee, thoothukudi. ... respondent prayer writ appeal filed under clause 15 of the letter patent act, against the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in w.p(md)no.8598 of 2014. for appellant ... mr.veera kathiravan for respondent ... mr.a.k.baskarapandian, special govt. pleader :common judgment (judgment of the court was delivered by r.mahadevan,j.) these writ appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned single judge of this court, in w.p(md)nos.8595, 8600 and 8598 of 2014, dated 27.06.2014.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition.3. necessary facts which are germane for the disposal of these writ appeals, are set out thus:3. 1. thoothukudi district welfare committee is maintaining the muthunagar beach at muthu nagar in thoothukudi. the said committee has decided to grant licence to use the area in the beach on commercial purpose such as installing rattinam and other accessories, canteen and for temporary shops so as to entertain the general public, who are visiting the muthu nagar beach. the committee has also called for tender/auction to allot the land in the said beach for that purpose. the writ petitioners had submitted their tender offering to install certain rattinams and other entertainment accessories, shops and canteen also, by quoting their price. 3.2. the said committee declared the writ petitioners as the highest bidders in the tender/auction held on 16.05.2013 and accordingly, granted licence to use the land in the muthu nagar beach for commercial purpose by installing the rattinam and other entertainment accessories, temporary shops and canteen. in this regard, a license agreement was also entered into between the respondent and the petitioners on 23.05.2013, which is for a period of one year, ending with 22.05.2014. as per the said licence agreement, the petitioners have installed all the equipments in the place earmarked by the authorities, namely, public works department. the permission was given to them to run the rattinams and other accessories, small shops and canteens till 10.00 p.m. 3.3. the writ petitioners have to pay necessary charges for the actual consumption of electricity and water. whereas it is the specific plea of the writ petitioners that they were compelled to close the premises by 8.30 p.m. due to low voltage, the writ petitioners were compelled to use the generators, by which, the had incurred heavy loss. hence, they made the representations to the respondent seeking for supply of electricity with adequate voltage to the licensed premises and also for extension of license for two more years. 3.4. since the said representations were not considered, they filed the writ petitions in w.p(md)nos.6988 to 6970 of 2014, for a mandamus to direct the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioners for extension of licence period for two more years from 23.05.2014. this court, by order dated 23.04.2014, has directed the respondent to consider those representations and pass an order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. then only, the respondent, on considering the representations of the writ petitioners, rejected the same by way of the impugned order dated 21.05.2014. 3.5. at the same time, tender notice in respect of four items have been called for by the office of the district collector, (development wing), thoothukudi vide notice in na.ka.no.v7/171/2013, dated 21.05.2014 fixing the date of receipt of tenders from 23.05.2014 to 30.05.2014 (upto 03.00 p.m) and opening of tenders at 4.00 p.m on 30.05.2014 and giving liberty to the petitioners to participate in the tenders. the tenders were received and opened on the date fixed (30.05.2014 at 4.00 p.m). but, the petitioners did not participate in the said tender. therefore, they filed the writ petitions to quash the said impugned order dated 21.05.2014 as well as tender schedule notification in na.ka.no.va7/171/2013 dated 21.05.2014 published in daily thanthi dated 23.05.2014 insofar as it relates to sl.nos.1 to 3 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent therein to extend the license period for two more years from 23.05.2014 for running rattinam, temporary shop and canteen. 3.6. meanwhile, the respondent was permitted by this court by virtue of an interim order dated 29.05.2014, to proceed with the tender subject to the condition that the respondent should not issue any licence till 06.06.2014, pursuant to which, tender was also conducted. 3.7. the respondent also filed the counter affidavit stating that tenders were received and opened on 30.05.2014 at 4.00 p.m. but, the writ petitioners did not participate in the same. further, it is the stand of the respondent that they were not able to enter into any agreement with the successful bidders because of the interim order passed by this court. hence, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 3.8. the learned single judge, upon consideration of the entire materials available before him, has passed the common order rejecting the case of the petitioners which is impugned in the present writ appeals.4. the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned single judge ought not to have rejected that the agreement entered between the petitioners and the respondent, are not statutory in nature, since the object of granting licence is only for the general public and hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition, by considering the bona fide claim of the appellants.5. per contra, the learned special government pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned single judge considered the claim of the appellants in detail and rejected the same on the ground that the appellants are not entitled to any such extension, except to direct them to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the present writ appeals.6. we have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned single judge.7. the learned single judge found that the writ petitioners were declared as the highest bidders in the auction conducted in the year 2013, in pursuance of which, they had entered into a licence agreement with the respondent. he also observed that in the said licence agreement, it was specifically agreed by the writ petitioners that they should vacate the premises on the expiry of the licence period without claiming right over the licence and if the licensee fails to vacate his business and on expiry of the licence, the executive authority or any other person duly authorized by him, is given liberty to remove the articles of the licensee and take possession of the premises without his consent and the said licence period came to an end on 22.05.2014 and even thereafter, the petitioners have given representations to the respondent on 13.02.2014 seeking supply of electricity with adequate voltage and for extension of licence for two more years, since they suffered loss in running the rattinam and other equipments, small shops and canteen respectively. he also rejected the contention of the petitioners that since the respondent failed to provide basic amenities, they had sustained loss and therefore, the respondent is bound to consider the representations seeking extension. further, it is held that the petitioners having agreed to hand over the premises on the expiry of licence period, they cannot claim for further extension and directed them to work out their remedy by way of separate legal proceedings in appropriate forum.8. it is seen that the writ petitioners being the highest bidders in the auction conducted in the year 2013, had entered into a licence agreement with the respondent. the writ petitioners had specifically agreed to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence period and the executive authority or any other person duly authorized by him, was given liberty to remove the articles of the licensee and take possession of the premises without his consent. admittedly, though the said licence period ended on 22.05.2014, the petitioners gave the representations to the respondent on 13.02.2014 seeking supply of electricity with adequate voltage and for extension of licence for two more years, for the reason that they had suffered loss in running the rattinam and other equipments, besides small shops and canteen respectively. it is pertinent to point out that the petitioners having consented for vacating the premises on expiry of the licence period, they cannot turn around and claim for extension, which they are not entitled to, even as per the agreement.9. for the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned single judge and accordingly, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed.10. in the result, all the writ appeals are dismissed. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. no costs. to the district collector and the president, thoothukudi district welfare committee, thoothukudi.
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

09. 07.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.A.(MD)No.880 of 2014 to W.A.(MD)No.882 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2014 W.A.(MD)No.880 of 2014: M.Kanagaraj ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The District Collector and the President, Thoothukudi District Welfare Committee, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent Prayer Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, against the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.8595 of 2014. !For Appellant ... Mr.Veera Kathiravan ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader W.A.(MD)No.881 of 2014: K.Sankar ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. The District Collector and the President, Thoothukudi District Welfare Committee, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent Prayer Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, against the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.8600 of 2014. For Appellant ... Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader W.A.(MD)No.882 of 2014: K.Sankar ... Appellant/Petitioner Vs. The District Collector and the President, Thoothukudi District Welfare Committee, Thoothukudi. ... Respondent Prayer Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent Act, against the order dated 27.06.2014 passed in W.P(MD)No.8598 of 2014. For Appellant ... Mr.Veera Kathiravan For Respondent ... Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader :COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN,J.) These writ appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P(MD)Nos.8595, 8600 and 8598 of 2014, dated 27.06.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition.

3. Necessary facts which are germane for the disposal of these writ appeals, are set out thus:

3. 1. Thoothukudi District Welfare Committee is maintaining the Muthunagar Beach at Muthu Nagar in Thoothukudi. The said Committee has decided to grant licence to use the area in the Beach on commercial purpose such as installing rattinam and other accessories, canteen and for temporary shops so as to entertain the general public, who are visiting the Muthu Nagar Beach. The Committee has also called for tender/auction to allot the land in the said Beach for that purpose. The writ petitioners had submitted their tender offering to install certain rattinams and other entertainment accessories, shops and canteen also, by quoting their price. 3.2. The said Committee declared the writ petitioners as the highest bidders in the tender/auction held on 16.05.2013 and accordingly, granted licence to use the land in the Muthu Nagar Beach for commercial purpose by installing the Rattinam and other entertainment accessories, temporary shops and canteen. In this regard, a license agreement was also entered into between the respondent and the petitioners on 23.05.2013, which is for a period of one year, ending with 22.05.2014. As per the said licence agreement, the petitioners have installed all the equipments in the place earmarked by the authorities, namely, Public Works Department. The permission was given to them to run the rattinams and other accessories, small shops and canteens till 10.00 p.m. 3.3. The writ petitioners have to pay necessary charges for the actual consumption of electricity and water. Whereas it is the specific plea of the writ petitioners that they were compelled to close the premises by 8.30 p.m. Due to low voltage, the writ petitioners were compelled to use the Generators, by which, the had incurred heavy loss. Hence, they made the representations to the respondent seeking for supply of electricity with adequate voltage to the licensed premises and also for extension of license for two more years. 3.4. Since the said representations were not considered, they filed the writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.6988 to 6970 of 2014, for a Mandamus to direct the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioners for extension of licence period for two more years from 23.05.2014. This Court, by order dated 23.04.2014, has directed the respondent to consider those representations and pass an order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Then only, the respondent, on considering the representations of the writ petitioners, rejected the same by way of the impugned order dated 21.05.2014. 3.5. At the same time, tender notice in respect of four items have been called for by the office of the District Collector, (Development Wing), Thoothukudi vide notice in Na.Ka.No.V7/171/2013, dated 21.05.2014 fixing the date of receipt of tenders from 23.05.2014 to 30.05.2014 (upto 03.00 p.m) and opening of tenders at 4.00 p.m on 30.05.2014 and giving liberty to the petitioners to participate in the tenders. The tenders were received and opened on the date fixed (30.05.2014 at 4.00 p.m). But, the petitioners did not participate in the said tender. Therefore, they filed the writ petitions to quash the said impugned order dated 21.05.2014 as well as tender schedule notification in Na.Ka.No.Va7/171/2013 dated 21.05.2014 published in Daily Thanthi dated 23.05.2014 insofar as it relates to Sl.Nos.1 to 3 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent therein to extend the license period for two more years from 23.05.2014 for running rattinam, temporary shop and canteen. 3.6. Meanwhile, the respondent was permitted by this Court by virtue of an interim order dated 29.05.2014, to proceed with the tender subject to the condition that the respondent should not issue any licence till 06.06.2014, pursuant to which, tender was also conducted. 3.7. The respondent also filed the counter affidavit stating that tenders were received and opened on 30.05.2014 at 4.00 p.m. But, the writ petitioners did not participate in the same. Further, it is the stand of the respondent that they were not able to enter into any agreement with the successful bidders because of the interim order passed by this Court. Hence, the respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 3.8. The learned single Judge, upon consideration of the entire materials available before him, has passed the common order rejecting the case of the petitioners which is impugned in the present writ appeals.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned single Judge ought not to have rejected that the agreement entered between the petitioners and the respondent, are not statutory in nature, since the object of granting licence is only for the general public and hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition, by considering the bona fide claim of the appellants.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned single Judge considered the claim of the appellants in detail and rejected the same on the ground that the appellants are not entitled to any such extension, except to direct them to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the present writ appeals.

6. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the learned single Judge.

7. The learned single Judge found that the writ petitioners were declared as the highest bidders in the auction conducted in the year 2013, in pursuance of which, they had entered into a licence agreement with the respondent. He also observed that in the said licence agreement, it was specifically agreed by the writ petitioners that they should vacate the premises on the expiry of the licence period without claiming right over the licence and if the licensee fails to vacate his business and on expiry of the licence, the Executive Authority or any other person duly authorized by him, is given liberty to remove the articles of the licensee and take possession of the premises without his consent and the said licence period came to an end on 22.05.2014 and even thereafter, the petitioners have given representations to the respondent on 13.02.2014 seeking supply of electricity with adequate voltage and for extension of licence for two more years, since they suffered loss in running the Rattinam and other equipments, small shops and canteen respectively. He also rejected the contention of the petitioners that since the respondent failed to provide basic amenities, they had sustained loss and therefore, the respondent is bound to consider the representations seeking extension. Further, it is held that the petitioners having agreed to hand over the premises on the expiry of licence period, they cannot claim for further extension and directed them to work out their remedy by way of separate legal proceedings in appropriate forum.

8. It is seen that the writ petitioners being the highest bidders in the auction conducted in the year 2013, had entered into a licence agreement with the respondent. The writ petitioners had specifically agreed to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence period and the Executive Authority or any other person duly authorized by him, was given liberty to remove the articles of the licensee and take possession of the premises without his consent. Admittedly, though the said licence period ended on 22.05.2014, the petitioners gave the representations to the respondent on 13.02.2014 seeking supply of electricity with adequate voltage and for extension of licence for two more years, for the reason that they had suffered loss in running the Rattinam and other equipments, besides small shops and canteen respectively. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioners having consented for vacating the premises on expiry of the licence period, they cannot turn around and claim for extension, which they are not entitled to, even as per the agreement.

9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that there is no cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and accordingly, the writ appeals deserve to be dismissed.

10. In the result, all the writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs. To The District Collector and the President, Thoothukudi District Welfare Committee, Thoothukudi.