Madras High Court
Sankaralingam vs Divisional Engineer on 15 November, 2018
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 15.11.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD)No.689 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Sankaralingam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Tirunelveli – 2.
2.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first
respondent in Ka.No.1173/2013/V1/dated 27.12.2013 and quash
the same and directing the respondents and to renew the
permission granted to the petitioner to occupy the land in km 7/4
(eastern side) in Bye pass Road near Passport Office at Tirunelveli
for running the Aavin Milk parlour.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Muruganantham,
AGP for RR1 & 2
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the first respondent in Ka.No. 1173/2013/V1/dated 27.12.2013 and quash the same and directing the respondents and to renew the permission granted to the petitioner to occupy the land in km 7/4 (eastern side) in Bye pass Road near Passport Office at Tirunelveli for running the Aavin Milk parlour.
2.The first respondent has passed the impugned order dated 27.12.2013 in Ka.No.1173 / 2013 / Va1, in and by which, the first respondent refused to renew the license of the petitioner to operate Aavin Milk Parlour on the Highways. The reason stated in the impugned order is that the District Traffic Committee had not recommended the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license for the ensuing period.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has now filed an additional typed set of papers, wherein a report, dated 05.02.2013 of the District Transport Committee has been enclosed. In the said report, the request of the petitioner was directed to be http://www.judis.nic.in 3 favourably considered.
4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the learned Additional Government Pleader has brought to my attention the circular bearing reference e.f.g.bt.vz;.4/478/2013, dated 30.12.2013, which indicates that the petitioner's request for renewal of the license to operate the Aavin Milk Parlour on the highways cannot be acceded, as it will result in hindrance to the transport on highways.
The said letter reads thus:-
“jpUbey;ntyp khefhpy; rhiynahuq;fspy; nghf;Ftuj;jpw;F ,ila{whf mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;s Mtpd; ghyfq;fis mfw;wpl eltof;if nkw;bfhs;Sk;go beLQ;rhiyj;Jiw nfhl;lg;bghwpahsh; mwpt[Wj;jg;gl;lhh;”.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has had the privilege of enjoying the benefit of the interim order, operating his Aavin Parlour since then.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader filed certain photocopies to show that the petitioner was selling goods other than those of Aavin and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for renewal and therefore, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent cannot be questioned.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
7.I have gone through the circular dated 30.12.2013 that appears to be a general circular applicable to all the Aavin parlours on the Highway and does not specifically apply to the petitioner. The photos of the booth filed by the learned Additional Government Pleader seem to indicate that the petitioner's booth is away from the road and therefore may not be an hindrance to traffic. However, these are something which can not be decided on merits based on the photos that are before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
8.The circular cannot be applied to the petitioner. As far as the objection that the petitioner is selling goods other than that of the Aavin is concerned, it is noticed that the basis for rejecting the renewal application is not based on the said ground. The only ground on which the petitioner's request for renewal was rejected was that the committee has not recommended the petitioner's name and therefore the petitioner was not entitled for renewal, even though on 05.02.2013, sitting in District Traffic Committee the same set of Officers have given a clear recommendation that the petitioner can be allowed to continue to operate a Aaving Booth in the said premises.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
9.The period of primary licence was itself one year. However, in view of the interim order, the petitioner has been operating the booth for last four years.
10.The petitioner therefore shall apply for fresh permission for operating Aavin Booth before the District Traffic Committee, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case, the District Traffic Committee recommends and accedes with the petitioner's request for operating the Aavin Booth, the respondents shall renew the licence for the ensuing period as per the applicable norms and rules/G.Os.
10.The above writ petition is allowed with above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.11.2018
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Arul
To
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
1.Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Tirunelveli – 2.
2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
Arul W.P.(MD)No.689 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 15.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in