Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2296 (MAD)

P. Raman v. District Collector Madurai

2014-08-01

M.JAICHANDREN, R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The petitioners seek the review of the orders, dated 24.06.2014, made in W.A.Nos.479 and 517 to 524 of 2014. 2. Since the issue involved in these review applications are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of, by a common order. 3. The short facts, for the disposal of these review applications, are as follows :- The review applicants are the licence holders of the second respondent. Since the shops given to them were old and in a dilapidated condition, the respondents took steps to demolish the building in question. Such steps were objected by the review applicants before this Court by way of Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).No.5037 of 2013 and 5339 to 5346 of 2013. However, the learned Single Judge, after noting down an important aspect that the Collector himself had inspected the building in question and also even as per G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, they are not entitled to continue the shops in question, had dismissed the Writ Petitions. In the said Writ Petition, the Rule 245 of the Motor Vehicle Rules,1989, relied on by the review applicants were also considered by the learned Single Judge, on facts and in law and ultimately, had rejected the claim of the review applicants. Aggrieved over the same, they filed Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD).Nos.479 and 517 to 524 of 2014. By a common judgment, dated 24.06.2014, the Division Bench of this Court held that the review applicants are only licensees and not lessees and therefore, their contentions were rejected in the Writ Appeals also. In the said Writ Appeals, it was clearly held that the appellants could not invoke G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, and could not claim that they were entitled to hold on the shops in question for 18 years from the date of the said Government order, as the said Government order was not applicable to them. Eventually, the claim of the review applicants were rejected by the Division Bench also. Hence, the review applicants have come up with these review petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicants mainly challenges the review applications, on two grounds :- (i) This Court should have decided, whether the review applicants fall under the category of lease or licence? Hence, the review applicants have come up with these review petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review applicants mainly challenges the review applications, on two grounds :- (i) This Court should have decided, whether the review applicants fall under the category of lease or licence? and (ii) G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007, has to be taken into account, for considering the case of the review applicants. 5. A perusal of the judgment would throw light that since it has already been considered by this Court that the applicants are only the licensees, the review applicants cannot once again re-agitate the issue under the guise of review applications. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court had clearly held that the applicants had occupied the shops in question, beyond the time limit extended to them. Both grounds have been considered, at length, by this Court and the said contention was accordingly rejected. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error in the orders passed in W.A.(MD).Nos.479 and 517 to 524 of 2014, dated 24.06.2014 much less on the face of the record to exercise its review jurisdiction to review the order passed by this Court. No fresh grounds are made out to consider the claim of the review applicants. These review applications are devoid of merits. 7. In fine, these review petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.