Madras High Court
Shenoy Nagar Brewary Salai vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 June, 2021
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.18239 of 2018
Shenoy Nagar Brewary Salai
Viyabarigal Nala Sangam
Regn.No.102/2011 by its Secretary,
Brewary Project No.2, Shenoy Nagar,
Chennai - 30. .. Appellant
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Water
Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Zone 8, Chennai Corporation,
36B, Pulla Avenue, Chennai - 40. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 20.11.2017 made in W.P.No.24208 of 2017.
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
For Appellant : Ms.Hema Sampath, Sr.Counsel
for Ms.R.Meenal
For Respondents : Mr.S.John J Raja Singh,
Government Counsel for R1
Mr.K.Raja Srinivas for R2 and R3
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant being
aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge, who declined
to interfere with the decision made by the respondent/Corporation with
respect to the licence fee fixed.
2. The appellant is the Association of the existing licensees. Their
licences have been extended by virtue of the Government Order
passed in G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration, Water Supply
Department dated 03.07.2007. Therefore, a decision was made giving
an offer to the existing licensees to continue instead of fresh auction.
The members of the appellant Association accepted the aforesaid offer
and continued as licensees. However, they made out a grievance with
respect to the rent fixed in tune with the aforesaid Government Order.
The learned Single Judge placing reliance upon the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
Division Bench, dismissed the writ petition and hence the present
appeal.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended
that the rent has been fixed arbitrarily and therefore the order requires
interference. The nature of area will have to be seen before fixing the
rent.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation
submitted that rent has been fixed on the advice of the Committee
constituted and in tune with the Government Order passed.
5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. What has been given to the existing
licensees is a concession. That concession is coupled with terms
imposed there under. Otherwise, the respondents are duty bound to go
for a fresh auction. The said concern has been extended to the existing
licensees and pursuant to the licences granted to them long time back.
Therefore, they cannot wriggle out of the same and contend to the
contrary that the lesser rent will have to be fixed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
6. The rent has been fixed on the advice of the Committee
constituted which in turn has taken into consideration the relevant
materials including the market value and the potential of the land. This
Court cannot exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India to review the said decision.
7. In such view of the matter, we do not find any error
warranting interference and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
30.06.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Zone 8, Chennai Corporation,
36B, Pulla Avenue, Chennai - 40.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.2281 of 2018
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
