Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 178 (MAD)

S. Ganesan v. The District Manager TASMAC Ltd

2011-01-12

M.Y.EQBAL, T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2011
JUDGMENT :- T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 02.08.2010 made in W.P.No.3134 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The facts of the present case lies in a narrow campus. The appellant was granted a licence to sell eatables and snacks and collect empty bottles in the bar attached to the IMFL retail vending shop No.4376, located at door No.6, GST Road, Tambaram Sanatorium. It appears that the fourth respondent herein filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.24170 of 2009 for a direction upon the respondents therein from in any manner establishing a retail vending IMFL shop at first street, Kamatchi Colony, Tambaram Sanatorium. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21.12.2009, with a direction to the District Collector, Kancheepuram to consider the representation submitted by the fourth respondent herein. According to the fourth respondent, the retail vending IMFL shop was within the prohibited distance from Hospital, Schools, Temples, Colleges etc. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the District Collector issued notice dated 18.09.2009, calling upon the appellant herein as well as the fourth respondent to attend a personal hearing and passed an order, directing that the shop should be shifted, failing which the bar licence would be cancelled. It is the case of the appellant that the shop was located after ascertaining its suitability by conducting a proper inspection and the entire action is on account of the malafide intentions of the fourth respondent. The appellant filed aforementioned writ petition in W.P.No.3134 of 2010, questioning the order directing shifting of the shop, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 02.08.2010. Aggrieved by such order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the correctness of the impugned order reiterated the stand taken in the writ petition and submitted that the shifting of the shop is on account of the malafide intention of the fourth respondent and as long as the IMFL shop in existence the appellant is also entitled to continue. The learned counsel further submits that the pending writ appeal, the licence in his favour has since been renewed till November 2010 and therefore, the appellant should be permitted to be continue. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the pending writ appeal, the licence in his favour has since been renewed till November 2010 and therefore, the appellant should be permitted to be continue. 4. Opposing the claim of the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the fourth respondent submitted that there is absolutely no vested right in the appellant to continue to sell eatables and collect the empty bottles, after the decision was taken to shift the bar. 5. Further, it is brought to our notice that the licence issued in favour of the appellant was cancelled on 14.09.2010. It is seen that the appeal itself though filed on 14.09.2010, the date on which the licence was cancelled, the same was admitted by this Court on 16.09.2010 and while admitting the appeal, one of the Division Bench of this Court directed the maintenance of status-quo as it was asserted by the appellant and he is continuing the business. Thus, the cancellation of the licence have been done on 14.09.2010, and the question of the appellant being entitled to continue in business does not arise. 6. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the police authorities have also inspected the place and certified that the location of the shop at that premises is a nuisance to the locality, there is traffic congestion and on account of the people in drunken mood, the area has become an accident prone zone and on both sides of the road, hospitals for TB/AIDS patients are situated. 7. Considering all these factors, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and we find no grounds to interfere with such an order more so, when the appellant was only a licencee to sell eatables and collect empty bottles and there is no vested right with the appellant to continue, after the licence having been terminated in the manner known to law, after affording full and effective opportunity to the appellant. 8. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.