Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2719 (MAD)

N. Balasubramanian v. District Manager (TASMAC), Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.

2014-08-19

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2014
Judgment 1. The petitioner was issued with a licence for running the bar attached to TASMAC shop No.4949 in Karur District. Accordingly, he commenced the bar. While so, on account of certain personal reasons, the petitioner made a representation on 09.02.2012 surrendering the licence. The license period was between 01.08.2011 and 31.07.2012. But, no order whatsoever was passed on the said representation dated 09.02.2012. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(md).No.4742 of 2012 seeking a direction for the refund of the security deposit and that writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 12.04.2012, directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2012. Thereafter, no order was immediately passed. Finally, the impugned order came to be passed by the District Manager by his proceedings in Na.Ka.050/CV5/2012, dated 01.04.2012, forfeiting the security deposit, thereby adjusting the same as against the licence fee. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without passing any order on the representation of the petitioner to cancel the licence, the respondents delayed the matter and finally passed the impugned order thereby adjusting the security deposit towards the alleged default payment. It is a disputed question of fact. 4. In my considered opinion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate upon this disputed question of fact. Above all, the terms and conditions of an agreement cannot be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the remedy for the petitioner is only to approach the Civil Court. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2013 is also dismissed. No costs.