Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to forthwith take necessary action to remove the fourth respondent from the place allotted to the petitioner, i.e. adjacent to the entrance of Pennagaram Town Panchayat Bus Stand, and to further direct the second and third respondents to accord renewal of the license and permission granted to the petitioner to run the Aavin Milk Booth for a further period, so as to enable the petitioner to run her Aavin Milk Booth from the said place.

2. According to the petitioner, she was given lease/licence for setting up an Aavin Milk Booth and run the same adjacent to the entrance of the Pennagaram Town Panchayat Bus Stand. The fourth respondent has encroached the place that has been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner was running an Aavin Milk Booth and lease/licence was given by the respondents 2 and 3, but unfortunately, on account of the disturbance caused by the fourth respondent, the petitioner could not continue her business. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to an application made to the second respondent seeking permission to erect the Aavin Booth in the vacant place adjacent to the above said bus stand, the request was considered and that after completion of necessary formalities by paying necessary charges, the application made was scrutinised and permission was granted to the petitioner to run the said Aavin Milk Booth. The other documents in support of the claim application was also scrutinised and that inspection was conducted. The second respondent granted lease/licence to the petitioner to erect the Aavin Milk Booth. The licence was initially granted on 01.10.2016 till 31.03.2017, which was extended.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent overnight, with the help of touts, has illegally occupied the place allotted to the petitioner and pushed the Aavin Milk Booth from the place that has been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has sent a communication requesting that lease/licence may be renewed, but however, the lease/licence period was renewed only upto September 2017, and thereafter, on account of the dispute between the petitioner and the fourth respondent, no further steps have been taken to extend the period of lease/licence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent has no locus-standi to continue in the place that has been allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner is a successful allottee of lease/licence as stated supra.