Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1084 (MAD)

M. Anand v. District Collector

2014-06-03

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Though this Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarfied Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.No.570/E/12 dated 29.03.2012 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same, as illegal and consequently to extend the lease for a further period of one year, now, in the course of hearing, the petitioner wants his earnest money deposited by him, with the respondents, for participating in the auction. The said request was turned down and the petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. 2. All along in the affidavit, the petitioner seeks extension of lease for fishing rights in Vandiyur Tank, Madurai District beyond the actual period granted to him. In this regard, he sent a representation to the second respondent on 22.03.2012 seeking extension of his lease period. However, the said request was turned down by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 29.03.2012. 3. In the counter affidavit, citing condition No.14 of the tender, the respondent has categorically refused to grant beyond the tender period. Accordingly, the second respondent has passed an order to that effect on 29.03.2012. In the counter, they made it clear that the Fisheries Department will not be responsible, if there was any natural disaster, flood/drought, poor growth of fishes, theft, diseases etc., if any, in the tanks leased out and the lessee alone should bear such losses and cannot claim any right with the department. 4. It is necessary to extract paragraph Nos.3 to 5, found in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2013 made in W.P. (MD).No.5318 of 2012 for disposal of this Writ Petition. “3. I also submit when the matter came up for hearing on 29.06.2012, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order by holding that “the learned special Government pleader seeks time. However, I am inclined to grant an order of interim injunction, considering the fact that the lease expires on 30.06.2012. Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction. However, the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.7,18,749/- within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the interim injunction granted shall stand automatically vacated, without making any further reference to this Court. 4. Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction. However, the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.7,18,749/- within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the interim injunction granted shall stand automatically vacated, without making any further reference to this Court. 4. Later on, when the matter came up for further hearing on 12.02.2013, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order by holding that “the main prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.7,18,749/-. The petitioner has also made an interim prayer directing the respondent to refund the amount or to extent the lease for a further period of one year. The question of interim direction does not arise at this point of time in view of noncompliance of the condition imposed by this Court while granting interim order on 29.06.2012. Hence, M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013 is dismissed. M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2012 is disposed of in view of the order passed in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2013. Post the main Writ Petition in the second week of June 2013 for final hearing. 5. Even though I have duly paid the deposit amount of Rs.7,18,749/- on 02.07.2012 by way of demand drafts, it was inadvertently misconstrued that I have failed to comply the condition of the interim order earlier passed. Hence, aggrieved by the same, I have preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.342 of 2013 before this Court. When the matter came up for hearing on 05.04.2013, the Hon'ble Division Bench has passed an order by holding that “learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said view of the learned single judge is erroneous and hence the present Writ Appeal. If there is an error apparent on the face of the record, it is always open to the appellant to move the Court for necessary correction in the order. In the circumstances, the learned for the appellant is permitted to withdraw the Writ Appeal with liberty to move the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has also made an endorsement to that effect. The Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to move the writ court for necessary relief. No costs.” 5. In the circumstances, the learned for the appellant is permitted to withdraw the Writ Appeal with liberty to move the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has also made an endorsement to that effect. The Writ Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to move the writ court for necessary relief. No costs.” 5. A perusal of the paragraphs would indicate that despite the fact that the petitioner paid the deposit amount, as required by the respondents, it was reported before this Court that it was not paid in time resulting in dismissing the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, it may not be proper on the part of the respondents to retain the deposit amount of the petitioner. It is not agreeable for this court that the respondents neither extend the lease period, as requested by the petitioner nor return EMD to the petitioner. Since the extension of lease period was already rejected by the second respondent, needless to point out that the earnest money deposit should go back to the petitioner. 6. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to return back the earnest money deposit to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.