Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1761 (MAD)

T. Venkatesan v. Deputy Director

2014-06-27

M.JAICHANDREN, M.VENUGOPAL

body2014
Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006. 3. The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner, the appellant herein, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the impugned notice, dated 20.6.2006, stating that the said notice had been issued without jurisdiction and that it is invalid in the eye of law. 4. The appellant herein had stated in the said Writ Petition that he had been running the telephone booth in question, within the E.S.I.C. Hospital compound, at K.K.Nagar, Chennai, for a long time. The appellant is a physically disabled person. The Employees State Insurance Corporation had issued a public notice, on 28.5.2004, inviting applications from physically handicapped persons, for the allotment of an STD/ISD/PCO booth, to be installed in the E.S.I.C. Hospital, at K.K.Nagar, Chennai. On 6.8.2004, an allotment order had been issued to the petitioner, permitting him to establish the booth. As per the order, dated 6.8.2004, the booth had been allotted in favour of the petitioner, for one year, from 1.10.2004. It had also been stated that the allotment shall be renewed, if the services provided by the petitioner were satisfactory in nature. Even though the petitioner had been running the booth in question, satisfactorily, from the date of its allotment, an order had been passed, by the Deputy Director, Directorate (Medical) Chennai, dated 20.6.2006, directing the petitioner to wind up the STD/ISD/PCO services and to vacate the hospital premises, on 11.7.2006. Challenging the said order the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006. This Court had passed an order, disposing of the writ petition with the following observations : “(1) The petitioner shall vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises which is in his occupation to the respondent corporation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (2) Once the respondents completed the construction of the college building inside the premises, the petitioner is at liberty to make fresh application seeking for location of his PCO inside the premises at a place to be identified by the respondents. (2) Once the respondents completed the construction of the college building inside the premises, the petitioner is at liberty to make fresh application seeking for location of his PCO inside the premises at a place to be identified by the respondents. (3) As soon as such application is made, the same shall be considered by the first respondent sympathetically and also by taking note of the fact that the petitioner was provided space earlier taking note of his physically challenged position. Such exercise shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application.” 5. Challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006, the present Writ Appeal has been filed stating that the learned single Judge had based his findings on mere surmises, without probing into the merits and facts of the case. The learned single Judge had directed the allotment of the booth, to the petitioner, after the construction of the building in question. The respondents had not produced any material evidence to substantiate their claim that it is not possible to permit the appellant to run the telephone booth inside the E.S.I.C. hospital campus. 6. It had been further stated that the learned single Judge had not taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had spent a huge amount of money to establish the booth. The respondents had not shown sufficient cause or reason for asking the appellant to remove the booth for the purpose of constructing the building. Further, the learned single Judge had not taken into account the fact that the building in question would take a long time to be completed. Only thereafter, the appellant could make an application, for the re-allotment of the booth in question. The inconvenience that would be caused to the public at large and the patients visiting the hospital, if the booth is removed, had not been considered by the learned single Judge, while passing the impugned order, dated 30.10.2013. As such, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013, is liable to be set aside, permitting the appellant to run the booth, within the premises of the E.S.I.C. Hospital, at K.K. Nagar, Chennai, without any interruption. 7. As such, the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013, is liable to be set aside, permitting the appellant to run the booth, within the premises of the E.S.I.C. Hospital, at K.K. Nagar, Chennai, without any interruption. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the appellant has no right to run the booth in question, within the premises of the E.S.I.C. Hospital, at K.K. Nagar, Chennai. The original order, dated 6.8.2004, had been passed granting the appellant, the permission to establish the booth and to run the same, for a period of one year. Since renovation works had been undertaken and new buildings were being constructed in the E.S.I.C. Hospital premises, the appellant had been asked to remove the booth. In such circumstances, the appellant had filed a writ petition before this court, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013. 8. The learned single Judge, who had heard the Writ Petition, had passed an order, dated 30.10.2013, directing the petitioner to remove the booth to facilitate the construction of the buildings in the E.S.I.C. Hospital campus. The appellant had also been permitted to make an application after the construction activities had been completed. On such application being submitted, the respondents had been directed to consider the same, sympathetically, and to pass appropriate orders thereon. The construction activities could not be completed as the appellant had not vacated the premises, as directed by the learned single Judge, within a period of four weeks specified in the order. As such, the present Writ Appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, it could be noted that an order, dated 30.10.2013, had been passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate (Medical) Chennai, granting permission to the appellant to run an STD/ISD/PCO booth within the premises of the E.S.I.C. Hospital, at K.K. Nagar, Chennai. It had been clearly stated in the said order that the permission was being granted to the appellant to run the booth, for a period of one year. It had been clearly stated in the said order that the permission was being granted to the appellant to run the booth, for a period of one year. Thereafter, the permission granted to the appellant was to be renewed, if it had been found that the appellant was running the booth, satisfactorily. Since building activities had been commenced for the renovation of the hospital an order, dated 20.6.2006 had been passed asking the appellant to remove the booth and to vacate the premises. However, the learned single judge had passed the order, dated 30.10.2013, in the Writ Petition, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006, directing the appellant to vacate the premises in question, within a period of four weeks, and had also granted permission to the appellant to submit a fresh application for the re-allotment of the booth in his favour, after the construction activities are completed. 10. It is also noted that the construction activities could not be completed as the petitioner had not removed the booth and vacated the premises in question. As such, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013. Further, the appellant has not been in a position to show that he has a legal right to continue to run the booth, within the E.S.I.C. Hospital premises, at K.K. Nagar, Chennai, inspite of the order passed by the first respondent asking him to remove the booth. Even though the appellant claims that he is a disabled person and therefore, he has got a vested right to run the booth in question, within the premises of the E.S.I.C hospital, we are of the view that such a claim made by the appellant is devoid of merits. The learned single Judge had made it clear that the appellant has to vacate the premises in question to enable the respondents to complete the construction works. He had also made it clear that it would be open to the appellant to submit a fresh application to the respondents, for relocating the booth within the E.S.I.C. Hospital premises. As such, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006. As such, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013, in W.P.No.22148 of 2006. It is also noted that the appellant had made an endorsement dated 27.6.2014, undertaking to vacate the telephone booth in question, within a period of seven days from the said date. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 30.10.2013. As the present Writ Appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.