… vs The Chief Administrative Officer/Dro
2023 Latest Caselaw 14397 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14397 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2023

Madras High Court

… vs The Chief Administrative Officer/Dro on 21 November, 2023

Author: P.D. Audikesavalu

Bench: P.D. Audikesavalu

W.P. No. 24972 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 21.11.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

W.P. No. 24972 of 2023
and
W.M.P. No. 24398 of 2023

N.Raja Mohammed
… Petitioner

-vs-

1. The Chief Administrative Officer/DRO
Market Management Committee,
C.M.D.A., Koyambedu Wholesale Market,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107.

2. M.Gowri Shankar ... Respondent

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
under Proceedings No. ANIKU/A1/0164/2016 dated 17.08.2023 and quash the
same and also directing the First Respondent to handover the possession of the
shop situated at T/A-1, Anna Fruit Market, Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 107 to
the Petitioner and permit the Petitioner to carry on the fruit vending business in
the said premises.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P. No. 24972 of 2023

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thaigeswaran

For Respondent : Mr. P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Thamarai selvam (for R1)

Mrs. A.L.Gandhimathi,
Senior Counsel
for L.Palani Muthu (for R2)

ORDER

Heard Mr. T.Thaigeswaran, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, Mr. P.Kumaresan, Learned Additional Advocate General appearing

for the First Respondent, Mrs. A.L.Gandhimathi, Learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the Second Respondent, and perused the materials placed on

record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. It is borne out from the materials placed on record that the Petitioner had

earlier filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 17879 of 2023 in this Court, in which

the following self-explanatory order had been passed:-

“3. On going through the records, it is seen that there is a

private dispute between the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent.

The license was granted by the 1 st respondent in favour of the

2 nd respondent and thereafter the 2 nd respondent permitted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the petitioner to run the business in the Shop at Koyambedu,

Chennai. When an attempt was made by the 2 nd respondent to

interfere with the business, the petitioner also filed a suit in

OS.No.7291 of 2019, before the XI Assistant City Civil Court,

Chennai, claiming for the relief of permanent injunction. The

suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner through judgment

and decree dated 04.07.2022.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the decree passed

by the Civil Court has become final and the petitioner is also

depositing the monthly rent in the Court since the 2 nd

respondent is refusing to receive the same in IA.No.4 of 2021

through order dated 04.01.2021 and inspite of the same, the 2

nd respondent had instigated a third party to create law and

order problem and based on the same, a complaint came to be

given before the Koyambedu Police Station. Immediately, the

complaint was brought to the notice of the 1 st respondent and

the 1 st respondent took steps to seal the shop and the shop was

accordingly sealed on 04.06.2023.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The petitioner made a representation to the 1 st

respondent explaining all the above facts on 09.06.2023. Since

the same did not evoke any response, the present writ petition

has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate

directions.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of

the case and the limited relief sought for in this writ petition

and without going into the merits, there shall be a direction to

the 1 st respondent to deal with the representation made by the

petitioner on 09.06.023 and take a decision on its own merits

and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from

the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is

directed to make a fresh representation to the 1 st respondent

along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this

order.”

It is informed that in furtherance to the said order, the Petitioner had submitted

a detailed representation dated 04.08.2023, but the First Respondent without

any discussion has in Proceedings in Se. Mu. Aanai No. ANiKu/A1/0164/2016

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

dated 17.08.2023 held that on the basis of the documents produced and the

enquiry conducted, the Petitioner has to hand over possession of the shop to the

Second Respondent, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

3. It is evident on a bare reading of the impugned order that apart from

extracting the aforesaid order passed by the Court and merely stating that

enquiry has been conducted and documents have been produced, there is

absolutely no reason mentioned for arriving at the ultimate conclusion that the

Petitioner has to hand over the shop to the Second Respondent. In that view of

the matter, it would not be possible to sustain the impugned order, which has to

be necessarily set aside, and the matter be remitted to the First Respondent to be

decided afresh in accordance with the earlier order passed by the Court.

4. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court without expressing any

view on the merits of the inter se dispute between the Petitioner and the Second

Respondent, passes the the following order:-

(i) the impugned Proceedings in Se. Mu. Aanai No. ANiKu/A1/0164/2016

dated 17.08.2023 issued by the First Respondent is set aside and the

same is remitted back to the First Respondent for conducting fresh

enquiry;

(ii) the Second Respondent is not precluded from submitting any explanation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

in response to the representations and documents submitted by the

Petitioner to the First Respondent;

(iii) if it is found that any other details or supporting documents is necessary

from the Petitioner or the Second Respondent, the deficiencies in that

regard shall be informed in writing to them requiring the same to be

furnished within a time frame of not less than 15 days for the same;

(iv) in the event of not being satisfied with the requirements even thereafter,

an enquiry shall be conducted affording full opportunity of personal

hearing to the Petitioner, the Second Respondent and all other persons

concerned to explain their respective positions in that regard;

(v) a reasoned order shall be passed dealing with each of the contentions

raised on merits and in accordance with law and the decision taken

communicated under written acknowledgment; and