Madras High Court
A.V.Ilavarasan vs The Traffic Manager on 28 June, 2021
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
and
W.M.P.Nos.27718, 27719, 27722 & 27738 of 2019
A.V.Ilavarasan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.28097 of 2019
K.Ravindran ... Petitioner in W.P.No.28101 of 2019
M/s.Ex Servicemen Enterprises,
Rep by its Proprietor
P.Uthrapathy
No.9/1, Honey Dew Apartments,
Kilpauk Garden, IInd Street,
Chennai - 10. ... Petitioner in W.P.No.28110 of 2019
Vs
1.The Traffic Manager,
Administrative Office, Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1.
2.The Deputy Traffic Manager (L & B),
Administrative Office, Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1.
3.The Estate Officer,
Chennai Port Trust,
Administrative Office, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 1. ... Respondents in all W.Ps
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in impugned
notices bearing Nos.F.No.C2(b)/066/2018/T, C3/207/2013/T and
C5/791/2011/T respectively dated 05.08.2019 issued by the second
respondent and quash the same.
In all W.Ps :
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Sridharthan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Madhuri Donti Reddy
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners were allotted various open spaces of different
dimensions in the Chennai Port Trust area by the respondents for the
purpose of assisting the ships for their repairing needs in the Chennai Port.
All the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned letters dated 05.08.2019
issued by the respondents informing that (a)the allotment will not be
extended for further period beyond 30.09.2019; (b)they have to remove the
workshop structures erected in the allotted area; (c)vacate and surrender the
unpaved lands in the original condition on or before 30.09.2019 and on
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
failure to do so, they will be treated as unauthorized occupants and penalty
charges will be levied at three times the normal fee for first 3 months, five
times upto 7 months and thereafter ten times from 8th month onwards.
Hence, these writ petitions.
2.Today, when the matters were taken up for consideration, the
learned counsel appearing on both sides jointly submitted that the issue
involved herein is covered by a common judgment of this Court dated
07.04.2021, passed in WP.Nos.27566, 27642, 27648, 27572, 27653, 27656,
27657 of 2019 and 7584 & 8051 of 2020, the relevant passage of which, are
usefully extracted hereunder:
"40. Admittedly, the respective petitioners in all
these writ petitions did not commit any default in the
payment of monthly charges till the issuance of impugned
letter dated 05.08.2019 and only thereafter some of them
have defaulted due to the levy of huge penalty. The
impugned letter dated 0508.2019 requires the respective
petitioners to remove the superstructure and surrender the
land but stipulates that the continuance of occupation
beyond the stipulated period in the letter can only be on
payment of the penal charges depending upon the number
of months. The respondent Port Trust has extended the
license only upto 30.09.2019 for all the petitioners. All the
petitioners have admittedly put up superstructures only
after getting permission from the respondent Port Trust.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
41. Under the earlier auction conducted by the
Chennai Port Trust subsequent to the order dated
20.11.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.Nos.3746, 3754, 3623 to 3628 of 2019, the upset base
price included the built up area and admittedly, the auction
fell through as there were no takers. Having framed, the
Land Policy Guidelines 2014, under section 111 of the
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and having given effect to the
same by conducting an auction earlier, the Chennai Port
Trust ought to have considered on merits and in accordance
with law by a speaking order the petitioners-
representations claiming that the said Land Policy
Guidelines 2014 are applicable to them. Even without
giving due consideration to the representation of the
petitioners claiming protection under clause 11.3(c) of the
Land Policy Guidelines, the impugned letter has been
issued by the second respondent calling upon the respective
petitioners to vacate the premises by relying upon the scale
of rates fixed by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports
(TAMP) through a non~speaking order. The contentions of
the respective petitioners that they are infact lessees and
not licensees in view of their nature of occupation has also
not been considered by the second respondent. As seen
from the impugned letter, no hearing was afforded to the
respective petitioners, that too, when the applicability of
scale of rates fixed by Tariff Authority for Major Ports has
been disputed by the respective petitioners. The second
respondent ought to have afforded a fair hearing to the
respective petitioners before passing the impugned order.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that principles
of natural justice has been violated by the second
respondent while passing the impugned order calling upon
the respective petitioner to pay a huge penalty.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
42. The second respondent has also not considered
the representations of the respective petitioners that they
are not liable to pay penalty in view of covid-19 pandemic
lockdown in terms of the Government orders passed from
time to time.
43. Since the second respondent has passed a non-
speaking order without considering the contentions of the
respective petitioners on merits and in accordance with
law, the impugned order will have to be necessarily
quashed and the matter remanded back to the second
respondent for fresh consideration.
44. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order
dated 05.08.2019 passed against the respective petitioners
in W.P.Nos.27566, 27642, 27648, 27572, 27653, 27656
27657 of 2019 and the impugned order dated ..04.2020 and
31.03.2020 passed against the respective petitioners in
W.P.Nos.7584 & 8051 of 2020 are hereby quashed and the
matter remanded back to the second respondent for fresh
consideration. The respective petitioners are directed to
give a fresh representation to the second respondent with
regard to their respective contentions raised by them in
their respective writ petitions within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on
receipt of the same, the second respondent shall pass a
speaking order on merits and in accordance with law after
giving due consideration to the contentions raised by the
respective petitioners and after affording a fair hearing to
the respective petitioners including granting them the right
of personal hearing within a period of four months
thereafter. However, it is made clear that the petitioners
should not have any arrears of monthly charges (excluding
the penalty) as on the date of their fresh representation and
in case there are arrears, the respondents shall summarily
reject their representation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
45. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions
are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. "
3.Following the aforesaid decision, which holds good to the case at
hand, the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside and are
accordingly, set aside. The matters are remanded back to the second
respondent for fresh consideration. The respective petitioners are directed to
give a fresh representation to the second respondent with regard to their
respective contentions raised by them in the writ petitions within a period a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
receipt of the same, the second respondent shall pass a speaking order, on
merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the
contentions raised by the respective petitioners and after affording a fair
hearing to them including personal hearing, within a period of four months
thereafter. However, it is made clear that the petitioners should not have any
arrears of monthly charges (excluding the penalty) as on the date of their
fresh representation and in case there are arrears, the respondents shall
summarily reject their representations.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
4.Accordingly, these writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.
28.06.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
mtl
To
1.The Traffic Manager,
Administrative Office, Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1.
2.The Deputy Traffic Manager (L & B),
Administrative Office, Chennai Port Trust,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1.
3.The Estate Officer,
Chennai Port Trust,
Administrative Office, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 1.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
mtl
W.P.Nos.28097, 28101 & 28110 of 2019
28.06.2021
(2/2)
http://www.judis.nic.in
