Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2614 (MAD)

Rahamathullah v. District Collector, Trichy

2014-08-13

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to forbear the respondents herein their men agents servants subordinates or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them from in any manner interfering with the right of the Petitioner to collect the Toll fees in the Weekly Market conducted on every Saturday of the week in Thuvarangkurichi, Marungapuri Taluk, Trichy District. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is that initially the weekly market was conducted in a particular place in Thuvarangkurichi on every Saturday. Subsequently, due to certain other issues, the weekly market was shifted to a different place namely, Agricultural Regulatory Sales Centre since there was some hindrance to the traffic in the earlier place where it was conducted and such shifting itself was pursuant to a peace committee convened. 3. It is admitted that the petitioner is a licensee to collect toll fee in the weekly market. This right has been conferred on the petitioner by way of a licence which was granted in 2012-2013 and renewed for a further period of one year. Curiously enough in the peace committee resolution, a condition has been imposed as if the toll fee should not be collected in the place where the market has been temporarily shifted. 4. In order to assess as to on what basis such a resolution could have been passed in the peace committee, when the petitioner is an authorized licensee of the third respondent, this Court granted time to the learned Additional Government Pleader to take instructions from the respondents and posted today for further hearing. 5. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, on instructions submitted that the petitioner is the licensee in respect of collection of toll fee in the weekly market in the erstwhile premises on account of the shifting having been done, it is open to the petitioner to continue to collect toll fee as per the licence conditions granted by the third respondent. 6. In the light of the above stand taken by the third respondent, the petitioner shall be entitled to collect toll fee as authorized by the third respondent in the weekly market which is in the newly and temporarily shifted place. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.