A Single Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh in the case of K.Dhandapani v. The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation has observed that it is not the duty of the Municipality (Respondent) to issue notice after the expiration of the license because the license has to be issued for a specific duration.
“The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner should have been put on notice before the respondent took action is totally unsustainable. There is no requirement for issuing a notice to the petitioner after the license period got over.”
Background of the Case
In this case, the petitioner had made the highest bid in an auction of the municipality and got the license of the shop for a stipulated time. When this time was over, the Respondent seized the shop. While this seizure took place, the belongings of the petitioner were also present inside the shop.
Therefore, this Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to take action to unlock the shop allotted to the petitioner and ensure the petitioner's right to life and livelihood, within a time that may be stipulated by this Court by considering the petitioner's representation.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
The Court considered all the facts and circumstances and pointed out two contentions of the Petitioner:
1- Respondent should issue the notice of expiration to him.
2- Respondent should unlock the shop so that the petitioner can take away his belongings.
Looking into the first contention, the Court held that when the license period was over, it was the duty of the petitioner to hand over the possession of the shop to the Respondent, and the petitioner failed to do so. The Respondent was not under obligation to issue notice and there was no requirement for issuing a notice to the petitioner after the license period got over.
The Corporation must only take steps to grant the license to the shop by calling for a public auction and the petitioner will always be entitled to participate in the auction and make his bid.
In the second issue, the Court was of the view that some belongings of the petitioner were leftover in the shop and directed the respondent to inform the petitioner and open the shop during a forenoon session. The petitioner shall be permitted to take away all his materials. Thereafter, the shop can be sealed and the Corporation can take possession of the same.
Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition without imposing any cost on it and issued directions to the Respondent that if any arrear was also left by the petitioner then it can be recovered in accordance with the law.
Case Details
Case: - W.P.(MD).No.8512 of 2021
Petitioner: - K.Dhandapani
Respondent: - The Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation
Counsel for Petitioner: - Mr.R.Venkatesan
Counsel for Respondent: - Mr.S.Karthikeyan
Judge: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
