Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs R.Sakthi Ramasamy ... 1St on 25 March, 2022
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.661 of 2021
The Commissioner
Oddanchatiram, Municipality,
Dindigul District. ... Appellant / 2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.R.Sakthi Ramasamy ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.The District Collector /
Disaster Management Department,
Dindigul District. ... 2nd Respondent / 1st Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 19.01.2021 passed in W.P(MD)No.796 of 2021 by the
learned Single Judge.
For Appellant : Mr.L.P.Maurya
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.S.Suresh Kumar
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.Balasubramani,
Special Government Pleader.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
19.01.2021 recorded on W.P(MD)No.796 of 2021. This appeal is by the
respondent Municipality which was respondent in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned advocates.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant Municipality has
vehemently submitted that, the Municipality being subordinate to the
State authority, the order passed by learned Single Judge cannot be
implemented by it, since it would be in conflict with the directions of the
State and therefore this appeal be entertained. It is submitted that the
directions to refund the proportionate licence fee is illegal and therefore
the same be set aside. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.
4. It is noted that, this appeal was notified for hearing
along with almost identical group of appeals being W.A(MD)Nos.428, 493
to 496, 754, 958, 959, 960, 961, 980 and 988 of 2021 and 136 of 2022.
5. Heard learned Special Government Pleader for second
respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that, this
appeal was listed for hearing along with cognate appeals which are
decided by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2022, however since on fact,
there could be some distinction, this appeal was ordered to be separately
heard today.
7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the relief granted by learned Single Judge so also
by this Court, we find that no different view needs to be taken qua this
writ petitioner as well. It is noted that when the question of license fee
was considered by this Court, the relief which was granted by learned
Single Judge was not interfered with and the appeals filed by the
Municipal Corporation were dismissed [Reference : W.A(MD)Nos.428, 493
to 496, 958, 959, 960, 961, 980 and 988 of 2021] and the writ petitions
in which such relief was not granted, those appeals (by the writ
petitioners) were allowed by this Court [Reference W.A(MD)Nos.754 of
2021 and 136 of 2022]. We find that no different view needs to be taken.
Only because the writ petitioner has already paid license fee, that itself
should not be treated as a factor against him. The direction given by the
learned Single Judge to refund proportionate license fee, in the facts of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
this case, according to us, need not be interfered with.
8. So far as the submission of learned advocate for appellant
that it is for the Government to take decision to refund the amount is
concerned, we find that, the group of appeals referred above were
decided after hearing the learned Special Government Pleader. According
to us no different view needs to be taken in this matter. The order which
is passed in this appeal filed by the Municipality shall bind Government as
well and we note that the District Magistrate is already respondent, who is
the face of the Government before this Court.
9. Learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted
that, the order of the Government was waiver of the license fee only for
two months. As already noted earlier, it is on the basis of the lock down
of the months of April and May that proposal was made in June which was
acted upon by the Government in September and not taking into
consideration the subsequent development is not a factor which would
detain this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and therefore, this argument is rejected.
10. Learned advocate for appellant has also relied on the
decision of the Delhi High Court in RC.REV.447/2017, decided on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
21.05.2020 [Ramanand & Ors. v. Dr.Girish Soni and Another] and the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raja Dhruv Dev Chand v. Raja
Harmohinder Singh and Another reported in AIR 1968 SC 1024. We find
that in the facts of this case, those Judgments will not have any
applicability and we note that we have already decided identical question
in a set of appeals and taking any different view in the matter would stand
in conflict with the orders of this Court, which cannot be done. Therefore,
this argument is rejected.
11. For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
12. It is noted that submissions are made at length on behalf
of the appellant on the point with regard to implementation of the order of
learned Single Judge. We find that when the direction is issued by learned
Single Judge with regard to refund of proportionate amount, the authority
which had accepted that amount is the only authority, which need to
refund it. Therefore, it is directed that the appellant Municipality will
refund the required amount not later than 25.04.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
13. List for compliance on 27.04.2022.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
25.03.2022
Index : No
smn/12
To
The District Collector /
Disaster Management Department,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
smn
W.A(MD)No.220 of 2021
25.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
