Madras High Court
The District Collector vs M. Vijayan on 23 June, 2021
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.18584 of 2019
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
2.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Operation,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Operation,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
Highways Department,
Construction and Operation,
Tiruppur (South),
Tiruppur District. .. Appellants
Vs
M. Vijayan .. Respondent
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.04.2019 made in W.P.No.25599 of 2016
For Appellants : Mr.S.John J. Raja Singh
Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkatesan
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single
Judge who by setting aside the memo dated 12.07.2016, incidentally
allowed the writ petition.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner was running a tea shop cum
Aavin Booth. A licence was granted for a period between 05.02.2016
and 31.03.2016. On the objection made by the traffic police and taking
note of the frequent occurrence of accidents, the respondent was
accordingly informed that the licence will not be extended. Incidentally,
he was asked to vacate the shop. Aggrieved over the same, the writ
petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the
ground that the respondent being a physically challenged person
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
cannot be asked to vacate the shop. Challenging the same, the present
writ appeal has been filed.
4. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the licence granted in favour of the respondent has not
been renewed and the shop is a hindrance to the public affecting the
free flow of the traffic. It is further submitted that factually accidents
did take place near the licensed premises. The Apex Court in Union of
India v. State of Gujarat & Others C.A.No.8519 of 2006 dated
18.1.2013 has also considered the same issue and held that the State
Government shall not grant any permission for structures in public
road and sideways and other public utility places. Thus, the order
requires interference.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that
the very same police has given no objection certificate and some
other persons have been allowed to run shops nearby. As the aforesaid
factors have been taken note of by the learned Single Judge coupled
with the physical condition of the respondent being a physically
challenged person, no interference is required.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
6. We do not find any legal right in favour of the respondent.
What has been given to him is a mere permission to put up a
temporary shop. It is nobody's case that the accident have not taken
place and the shop is a hindrance to the free flow of traffic. Though, no
objection was given earlier, the traffic police has made an objection
stating that the continuation of the shop is a hindrance to the free flow
of the traffic. We have also perused the communication sent by the
Inspector of Police, South Traffic Police Station to the Assistant
Divisional Engineer, Highways Department dated 05.08.2019. The
Apex Court has also held that such shops should not be allowed to
continue in the larger public interest. When the appellants are of the
view that the temporary tea stall is the hindrance being nearer to the
District Collector Office, Tiruppur and L.R.G. Women College leading to
accidents, the said view cannot be substituted by the order of the
Court. The permission granted to the respondent has also expired as
early as 01.04.2016.
7. Thus, in the light of the above and in the absence of any legal
right, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge,
requires interference and the same is set aside accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
8. The writ appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However,
taking into consideration the fact that the respondent being a
physically challenged person, we direct the appellants to grant
alternative place to eke out his livelihood within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such
time, status quo as on today shall continue.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
23.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.2887 of 2019
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
