Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Madras High Court

W. P(Md) N O. 2 4 4 9 6 O F 2 0 1 8 vs The District Collector on 4 December, 2017

1 B E F O R E T H E MADU R AI B E N C H O F MADR A S HI GH C O U R T DAT E D 1 2 . 1 2 . 2 0 1 8 CORAM T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR S . J U S T I C E V. B H AVA NI S U B B A ROYA N W. P(MD) N o. 2 4 4 9 6 o f 2 0 1 8 a n d W.M. P.(MD) N o s . 2 2 2 0 1 a n d 2 2 2 0 2 o f 2 0 1 8 D.Venkatachalam .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai, Madurai District.

2.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai, Madurai District.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai, Madurai District.

4.The Manager, Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., (Government of Tamil nadu undertaking), Madurai Unit, No.2, Beasant Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai.

5.The Divisional Engineer, Construction & Maintenance, Highways Department, Madurai, Madurai District. .. Respondents P r a y e r : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to harass and disturb the petitioner in any way from running the fish food stall to an extent of 10 X 10 sq. ft in-front of the Mattuthavani Omni Bus stand entrance in the light of permission granted by the fifth respondent in his proceedings dated 04.12.2017 and by considering the petitioners representation dated 22.11.2018 within the period that may be stipulated http://www.judis.nic.in by this Court.

2

                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.A.Nawazkhan
                                                             for M/s Ajmal Associates
                                        For R1, R3 and R4 : Mr.S.Dhayalan
                                                            Government Advocate
                                       For R2              : Mr.Shanmuga Selvam
                                                         O RD E R


This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ Mandamus directing the respondents not to harass and disturb the petitioner in any way from running the fish food stall to an extent of 10 X 10 sq. ft in-front of the Mattuthavani Omni Bus stand entrance in the light of permission granted by the fifth respondent in his proceedings dated 04.12.2017 and by considering the petitioners representation dated 22.11.2018 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has made an application to the fourth respondent-the Manager, Tamilnadu Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., Corporation Limited on 26.07.2017 to appoint the petitioner as an agent for selling fishes. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as security deposit on 26.07.2017 and from that day onwards, the petitioner was running a fish stall at the area outside Mattuthavani Omni bus stand, Madurai. The fifth respondent by his proceedings dated 28.09.2017 sent a communication to the first respondent requesting to give permission to put up a fish stall. The fifth respondent by his proceedings dated 04.12.2017 granted permission to put http://www.judis.nic.in up a fish stall to an extent of 10 X 10 sq.ft. As per the said order, he 3 has put up a shop.

3. The petitioner would further submit that when he was running the said fish stall, one of the members of the Khaidae Millath Matthuthavani Bus Stand Street Vendors Welfare Association occupied the stall without prior permission and he was trying to remove the shop from the original place. Hence, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 9263 of 2018 to remove the petty shop illegally put by him and the same is pending as on date.

4. The petitioner further submits that on 04.12.2017, he has been granted permission. But the police officials are harassing the petitioner and interfering in day to day business and threatened the petitioner to vacate and remove the shop put up by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 22.11.2018 requesting them not to harass the petitioner and not to disturb the day to day business. Even after receiving the representation, the concerned officials are continuously harassing the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that right to carry business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Since the respondents are interfering with the day to day business, the petitioner has come before this Court seeking indulgence of this Court by issuing a writ of mandamus.

5. The learned Government Advocate submits that the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner was granted permission to run a shop to an extent of 10 X 10 sq. ft only for selling fresh fish and the petitioner started to sell the cooked food with fish.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies the said allegation.

7. The police official, who is assisting the learned Government Advocate has given instruction by stating that the petitioner has been selling other food items also, which are not permitted to sell. The learned Government Advocate has pointed out that there are some conditions in the order passed by the Highways, which is annexed in page No.6 of the typed set of papers in Lr.No. 2676/2017/Ee.Va.Aa -2/ dated 04.12.2017. In that letter, Clauses IV and V are as follows:

“4. tpw;gidafj;jpy; kPd; tpw;gid Vw;Wf;bfhs;sf; Toa bghUl;fis jtph;j;J yhfphp t];Jf;fs;> kJghdq;fs; kw;Wk; neha; gug;g[k; bghUl;fis tpahghuk; bra;af; TlhJ.
5. tpw;gidafj;jpy; nf];. bgl;nuhy;> Ory; kw;Wk; kz;vz;iz nghd;w vspjpy; jPg;gw;wf;Toa bghUl;fis tpw;gnjh mjid gad;gLj;jp bghUl;fs; jahhpj;njh tpw;gid bra;af; TlhJ”.

According to the above said clauses, except selling fish, they cannot sell any other items such as drugs and other things that may cause or spread diseases and they cannot sell gas, petrol, diesel or kerosine and they cannot sell other http://www.judis.nic.in meals by utilizing gas or kerosine and other inflammable items. It is also 5 mentioned in clause-10 that he cannot let the shop for sublease and as per Rule 2001 Part-V in paragrph No.26, only on the abovesaid conditions temporary permission has been granted and after the period is over the petitioner has to hand over the said area to the Highways Department. The said permission is granted to the petitioner for running a temporary shop and based on that, he cannot claim any right or he cannot file any cases before the court of law, The fifth respondent has got right to cancel the said temporary permission granted to the petitioner.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

9. The petitioner's prayer itself states that ''not to harass and disturb the petitioner in any way from running the fish food stall''. This itself shows that the petitioner has been running a fish food stall. But according to the above stated conditions while granting permission the petitioner has not been given any right to run a food stall. Further, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that they have not harassed the petitioner and if any provision permitted the petitioner to run a fish food stall, it is for him to deal with the same before the authorities http://www.judis.nic.in 6 concerned and he cannot file a writ petition and try to mislead the court. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference from of this Court and he has not produced any impugned communication from the authorities to file this writ petition and there is no proof that disturbance is caused by the official respondents herein.

10. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 22201 and 22202 of 2018 are closed.

1 2.1 2.2 0 1 8 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No CM To

1.The District Collector,Madurai,Madurai District.

2.The Commissioner,Madurai Corporation,Madurai,Madurai District.

3.The Commissioner of Police,Madurai City,Madurai, Madurai District.

4.The Manager,Tamil Nadu Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd.,(Government of Tamil nadu undertaking),Madurai Unit, No.2, Beasant Road,Chokkikulam, Madurai.

5.The Divisional Engineer,Construction & Maintenance,Highways Department, Madurai, Madurai District.

http://www.judis.nic.in 7 V. B H AVA NI S U B B A ROYA N , J CM W. P(MD) N o. 2 4 4 9 6 o f 2 0 1 8 a n d W.M. P.(MD) N o s . 2 2 2 0 1 a n d 2 2 2 0 2 o f 2 0 1 8 1 2.1 2.2 0 1 8 http://www.judis.nic.in