Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs R.Chinnaiah Pillai on 30 July, 2019
Author: K.Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K.Ravichandrabaabu, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6658 of 2019
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Secretary to Government,
Health and family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai -09.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,Chennai – 600 010.
:Appellants/Respondents
.vs.
R.Chinnaiah Pillai : Respondent/Writ Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)No.20589 of 2015, dated 20.2.2019.
For Appellants :Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Special Government Pleader
For Respondent :Mr.Raguvarangopalan
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019
JUDGMENT
********* [Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.] This writ appeal is directed against the order of the Writ Court made in W.P.(MD)No.20589 of 2015, dated 20.02.2019. The appellants are the respondents before the Writ Court.
2.Mr.Raguvarangopalan, learned counsel takes notice for the respondent and by consent, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.
3.The Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the second respondent, dated 23.06.2015, wherein and whereby the request of the writ petitioner for locating Aavin Parlour inside the campus of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichirappalli, was rejected by citing G.O.(MS)No.93, Health and Family Welfare (H2) Department, dated 25.03.2015. The Writ Court by taking note of an order passed in W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2016, dated 26.07.2017, set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to make a fresh application with further direction to the second respondent to accord permission to the petitioner to set up 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019 the Aavin Booth Parlour after obtaining an undertaking affidavit from the petitioner that he will sell and vend only Aavin products.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that in view of G.O.(MS)No.93, dated 25.03.2015, the request of the petitioner was rightly rejected and therefore, the Writ Court is not justified in issuing a positive Mandamus to the second respondent to accord permission to the writ petitioner to set up the Aavin Booth Parlour, especially, when already existing private canteens are also directed to be vacated within three months as per the said Government Order. He further submitted that the decision made in W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2016 relied on by the Writ Court is on different set of facts, where the writ petitioner therein was already having a licence to run the Aavin Booth Parlour and his renewal application was rejected by citing G.O.(MS)No.93, dated 25.03.2015. After saying so, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that in this case, the petitioner seeks to establish such Aavin Booth first time inside the Government Hospital and therefore, it is for the authorities to take a decision as to whether such permission can be granted or not. He further contended that once G.O.(MS)No.93, dated 25.03.2015 was 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019 passed, even the second respondent is not entitled to take a decision to permit the location of private canteens as the Government has taken a concrete decision to allow only the canteens run by the Government inside the Government hospital.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner on the other hand contended that since the petitioner is provided a permission by the Aavin as its franchise, the second respondent can very well consider the location of Aavin Booth inside the Government Hospital as Aavin is one of the Organization run by the Government.
6.Heard both sides.
7.There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner has made an application for locating the Aavin Milk Booth inside the campus of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Trichirappalli, as first time. Needless to state that the respondents being the authorities under whom the management and maintenance of the said hospital campus are vested, they are the right persons to take a decision as to whether any private canteen or restaurant or milk 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019 parlour can be permitted inside the Government Hospital campus or not. Further, the Government has already taken a decision through G.O.(MS)No.93, dated 25.03.2015, that all the existing private canteens inside the campus of Government Hospitals should be vacated within a period of three months, except the canteens which are being run by the Government departments. It is further seen from the said Government Order that even if any canteen is to be located inside the campus of Government Hospitals, it should be done only by way of inviting tenders from the public.
8.Therefore, when such being the decision taken by the Government, we are of the considered view that permission to locate the Aavin Booth cannot be ordered to be granted based on an application, as has been done in this case. Therefore, we find that the order of the Writ Court in permitting the petitioner to make such an application with a consequential direction to the second respondent to issue a licence to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, the decision relied on by the Writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.15498 of 2016 is also factually distinguishable, 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019 K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rj2 since in that case permission was already granted and renewal was rejected. Therefore, this Court has passed an order to that effect, which we consider as not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9.Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the Writ Court is set aside. However, if the appellants are intending to permit for locating any private canteens or milk parlours, it is open to them to do so after inviting tenders by way of public auction/tender by following the procedures contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Tender Transparency Act. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
[K.R.C.B.,J.] & [S.K.R.,J.] 30.07.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rj2 W.A(MD)No.753 of 2019 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in