Madras High Court
A.Palanimuthu vs The District Manager on 25 January, 2016
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.01.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P.Nos.40725 to 40737 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 W.P.No.40725 of 2015 A.Palanimuthu ..Petitioner Vs. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), No.2/92, Santhiyur Village, S.Attiyampatti Post, Salem-636 203. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.1333/A5/2015/C.V. dated 27.11.2015, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to refund the petitioner's security deposit sum of Rs.33,246/-(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Six Only) within a stipulated time. For Petitioners : M/s.D.Saraswathi For Respondent : Mr.B. Nedunchezhian (TASMAC) COMMON ORDER
The Petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the impugned orders dated 27.11.2015 passed by the respondent and consequently seeking a direction to the respondent to accept the security deposit amounts that had already been deposited by the petitioners within the time limit framed by this Court.
2. Heard M/s.D.Saraswathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.B. Nedunchezhian, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent/ TASMAC.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of running bars attached to the TASMAC shops, the respondent called for tenders. Accordingly, the petitioners participated in the same and were declared as successful bidders. Subsequently, on payment of security deposits fixed by the respondent and one month rental amount in advance, they were granted licence for the period 2014-2015.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that after expiry of the licence period, they did not participate in the subsequent year tender.
5. While so, the respondent issued an order dated 27.11.2015 stating that as per notice from the respondent, the amounts fixed as upset price for the respective shops were wrongly calculated and after forfeiting the amounts that had already been deposited as security deposits by the respective petitioners for respective shops, the petitioners were asked to remit the remaining balance amounts within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which, further action would be initiated against them. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the present Writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent never issued any show cause notice, nor communicated the notice received from the respondent dated 26.11.2015 to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the respondent has forfeited the security deposits already paid by the petitioners without issuing any notices. Hence, the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
7.On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TASMAC submitted that due to variations in the upset price deposits with that of the security deposits, the recovery was sought to be made by the respondent. However the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions from the Department submitted that the respondent is now inclined to furnish the details or calculations pertaining to fixation of present upset prices to the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the respondent are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the respondent for passing fresh orders. The respondent is directed to furnish all the details pertaining to the calculations of fixation of upset price to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the petitioners shall file their objections, if any, and on filing of such objections, the respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, within a period of six weeks thereafter.
9. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.01.2016 dn/msr To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.,(TASMAC), No.2/92, Santhiyur Village, S.Attiyampatti Post, Salem-636 203.
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
dn/msr
W.P.Nos.40725 to 40737 of 2015
25.01.2016