S. Muthuaman v. District Collector, Collectorate Campus, Sivagangai
2019-05-15
J.NISHA BANU
body2019
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : (i) To grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men, Agents, or any one claiming under them from interfering with the licence/lease hold right of the petitioner as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in MuMuA1/3740/2015 dated 11.12.2018 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction or any other writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents herein, their men, Agents, or any one claiming under them from anyway interfering with the lawful licence/lease hold right of the petitioner as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Mu.Mu.A1/3740/2015 dated 11.12.2018 with adequate compensation to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 2. The first respondent had published a notification in the District Gazette in proceedings A1/3740/2015 dated 13.08.2016 about the decision to issue public auction notice for issuing licence for cutting and removal of seema karuvel trees (Julifora) in Survey No 91, Periyakottai Kanmoi, in V.Pudhukulam Group of villages, Sivaganga Taluk, admeasuring 122.14.00 hectares. The petitioner had participated in the public auction conducted on 19.08.2016 and was a successful bidder quoting the highest value of Rs.9,16,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixteen Thosusand only). The petitioner had paid Rs.5 lakhs on 29.08.2016, Rs.4.16 lakhs on 10.12.2018. Additional caution deposit of Rs. 2,29,000/- was also paid by the petitioner on 10.12.2018 through SBI, Sivaganga. The license was issued on 11.12.2018 valid through 12.06.2019. The conditions of the license are spelt out in the license. 3. The petitioner was enjoying the license/leasehold rights uninterrupted until 15.02.2019 when the second respondent set aside the lease without any notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same by way of a writ petition and this Court vide order dated 15.04.2019 in WP (MD) Nos 4267 of 2019 allowed the Writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The certified copy of the above order was made available to the petitioner on 24.04.2019 and within 2 days, that is, on 26.04.2019 the first respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the lease.
The certified copy of the above order was made available to the petitioner on 24.04.2019 and within 2 days, that is, on 26.04.2019 the first respondent issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the lease. The petitioner preferred Writ petition WP No 11142 of 2019 against the above Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2019 and this court vide Order dated 29.04.2019 disposed of the case directing the petitioner to offer his explanation to the Show Cause Notice with an instruction to the first respondent to consider the explanation without any pre determination. 4. The petitioner filed a detailed explanation on 29.04.2019 that was received by the 1st respondent on 02.05.2019 and the petitioner submits that no decision is taken regarding the Show Cause Notice. The petitioner submits that as on date there is no order preventing or prohibiting the petitioner from cutting and removing of seema karuvel trees from the licensed/leased area. The petitioner submits that without any order and authority, the 3rd respondent with the officials of respondents 1 to 5 descended to the lease hold area and physically prevented the petitioner and his employees from cutting and removing the seema karuvel trees that is lawfully entitled to them. 5. The petitioner submits that he had made an earnest request to the officials on 02.05.2019 to allow cutting and removing of seema karuvel trees as per the license up to 12.06.2019. The petitioner states that as there were oral threats by the officers of respondent 1 to 5, he had sought protection from the police for peaceful enjoyment of the lease hold rights up to 12.06.2019. The petitioner submits that the 6th respondent had arrived with the officials of respondents 1 to 5 on 09.05.2019 at the lease hold area and physically prevented the employees from cutting the trees and removing them after threatening the petitioner. When the petitioners lawyers insisted for written orders under which they are preventing the petitioner, nothing was produced and were informed that they are giving oral orders. The petitioner alleges that they are illegally prevented from enjoying the rights. 6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had paid the entire lease amount of Rs.9,16,000/-.
When the petitioners lawyers insisted for written orders under which they are preventing the petitioner, nothing was produced and were informed that they are giving oral orders. The petitioner alleges that they are illegally prevented from enjoying the rights. 6. The petitioner submits that the petitioner had paid the entire lease amount of Rs.9,16,000/-. They pointed out that leasehold rights for cutting and removal of seema karuval trees were given for as low as Rs.3,000/- in the past when this hon'ble court had directed to remove the trees within a stipulated time. Therefore, they argue that it is not fair on part of the respondents to allege infirmities in the proceedings. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent is vengeful in his actions as the petitioner had challenged the earlier orders before the High Court. They had alleged the actions of the 6th respondent are malafide with oblique motives necessitating impleading the third respondent in her personal capacity. The petitioner submits that the lawful rights of the petitioners are guaranteed under Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India which was prevented by the respondents under one pretext or other. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would vehemently support the contents of the show cause notice dated 26.04.2019. He submits that there is a huge loss to the Government Exchequer and the department contemplated framing of charges against the officer who accepted the part payment belatedly and issued the license. He further submitted that allowing the petitioner to continue will cause further damage to the state interests and sought to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned AAG for the respondents at length and perused the records of the case. The licence/lease hold was given to the petitioner who was the highest bidder in a public auction. The entire bid amount along with additional caution deposit is also paid by the petitioner though part of the payment was paid belatedly. The license/lease hold issued to the petitioner is valid up to 12.06.2019. During February, 2019 the right of the petitioner was interfered with by the respondents by setting aside the lease without any notice to the petitioner which was reversed by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2019 in WP No 4267 of 2019 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
During February, 2019 the right of the petitioner was interfered with by the respondents by setting aside the lease without any notice to the petitioner which was reversed by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2019 in WP No 4267 of 2019 on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. A show cause notice came to be issued by the first respondent within 2 days of the order of this court and this court vide order dated 29.04.2019 in another Writ petition No 11142 of 2019 had directed the petitioner to file his explanation for the show cause notice and cautioned the first respondent against any pre determined action. 9. On perusal of the Show cause notice, it is seen that some of the allegations, more specifically pare 2 (5) & 2 (6), are made in total disregard for the conditions of the license. The understanding of the respondents regarding the purposes of the license/leasehold, public auction by bidding, the order of this court regarding the eradication of seema karuvel trees, leaves a lot to be desired. I say so because the notification of public auction does not restrict the area of the survey no 91 for the purposes of the license contrary to the claims in the show cause notice. Perusal of the license indicates that the obligation to remove the seema karuvel trees by uprooting is a specific condition finding part in the license agreement and the condition is rightly attributed to the decision of this court that sought to weed out the seema karuvel trees from water bodies. The respondents have no complaints about the public auction. It is not open for the respondents to award lease to the highest bidder through public auction and then complain of losses. It is also not the case of the respondents that the auction was conducted in secrecy. 10. I have the benefit of perusing the show cause notice of the 1st respondent and the explanation provided by the petitioner. On a concurrent reading of the same, I have no qualm to hold that there is no single allegation in the Show Cause Notice that is reasonable enough to warrant interference with the rights of the petitioner.
10. I have the benefit of perusing the show cause notice of the 1st respondent and the explanation provided by the petitioner. On a concurrent reading of the same, I have no qualm to hold that there is no single allegation in the Show Cause Notice that is reasonable enough to warrant interference with the rights of the petitioner. It has rightly been observed by this court in its order dated 29.04.2019 in WP No 11142 of 2019 that the respondent shall not pre judge the issue and consider the explanation of the petitioner in right earnest. I fear, the act of the respondents at physically preventing the petitioner from enjoying the leasehold rights indicates that the administration had pre-determined the issue. 11. The only reasonable allegation in the show cause notice is that the license was issued callously by the licensing authority after a huge delay. It can be argued that the yield can be more at a distant time and therefore the initial bidding price (base price) could have been enhanced. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that the lease is for removal of 'weed' and the same were removed by uprooting the seema karuvel trees. Therefore, the delay, if at all an infirmity, is curable. But, since the auction is public for removing the 'weeds' and conducted with adequate publicity through news papers, no mala-fide can be attributed to the licensing authority on the ground of yield and losses. Also there is no allegation of collusion by the petitioner to warrant cancellation of lease. 12. The petitioner, besides an order of restraining the respondents, had also sought compensation for the lost period. It is common knowledge that the petitioner stands to lose if the period of lease is cut short by interference in view of the bid amount paid. But, in the circumstances of the allegations of wind fall gains, though unsubstantiated and strange to the nature of license and for the reason of the delay in payment of the auction amount for over 27 months, this court does not feel it proper to order compensation. 13. This court is aware of the order dated 29.04.2019 of this Court in WP No 11142 of 2019 directing the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner without pre-judging the issue and pass orders on merit.
13. This court is aware of the order dated 29.04.2019 of this Court in WP No 11142 of 2019 directing the respondents to consider the explanation of the petitioner without pre-judging the issue and pass orders on merit. But, by the hostile actions of the respondents in physically preventing the petitioner from enjoying his rights, the respondents have pre judged the issue and vitiated the proceedings. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by directing/allowing the respondents to pass orders on merits. The ends of justice will be met only if suitable directions are given by this Court to allow peaceful enjoyment of the licence/leasehold rights of the petitioner throughout the tenancy of the lease. 14. In view of the above discussions, this court is inclined to forbear the respondents herein, their men, Agents, or any one claiming under them from anyway interfering with the lawful licence/lease hold right of the petitioner as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Mu.Mu.A1/3740/2015 dated 11.12.2018 for the period ending 12.06.2019. In view of the discussions regarding the allegations in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.04.2019 and the subsequent developments, the lease period is made absolute under the seal of this court and no interference by the respondents at any pretext is permissible. 15. Writ Petition allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.