Whether permission granted for provision store can be utilised for running a flour mill.

K.A. Swami, CJ.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.1.1995 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.1445 of 1994. In the writ petition the petitioner sought for quashing the Resolution No.90/93 of the first respondent as communicated to the petitioner in letter No.SS.1/20903/93 dated 9.12.1993 and consequently forbear the respondents from permitting or issuing any licence in favour of the fourth respondent or to anybodyelse at Shop No.1. M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam, Madras-106 to run a flour-cum- shikkakaimill by issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.

2. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding the denial of flour mill licence to the fourth respondent, or refusing to permit to run a flour mill in Shop No.1 in question would be denying the right of the fourth respondent to locate a flour mill and it would affect his business. Learned single Judge has further opined that the one is a mixed resident zone. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to question the decision of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter ref erred to as ‘M.M.D.A.’) permitting a change in the nature of use of the shop to run a flour mill. Learned single Judge has further held that the petitioner has no right to challenge the permission granted to the fourth respondent to run a flour mill at the premises bearing Shop No.1 situate in M.M.D.A.Colony, Arumbakkam, Madras.

3. The contention of the appellant as well as the third respondent is that the shop in question belongs to Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘T.N.H.B.). It was constructed with the aid of World Bank. With a view to secure good rent Shop Nos. 1 to 17 were reserved for specified trade, whereas Shop Nos. 18 and 19 were not reserved for any specified trade, and allottees of Shop Nos. 18 and 19 were free to run any trade according to law. Fourth respondent applied for shop No.1, which was spe cified for running a provision shop, whereas, the petitioner/appellant applied for Shop No. 19 which was not earmarked for running any specified trade, and, there was an option to use it for any other purpose. The appellant offered a tender for Rs. 1, 05, 000 whereas the fourth respondent offered a tender for a sum of Rs.51, 000. Both were accepted. The leases were granted to the petitioner/appellant as well as to the fourth respondent with a condition that the petitioner would be at liberty to use it for any other trade whereas the fourth respondent should use it only for running a provision store. However, later on, he with the permission of the M.M.D.A. introduced wet grinder business also as it was considered that the wet grinder business was a cottage industry and would be a part of provision store. But, later on, he wanted to establish a flour mill in the very shop. He made an application to the M.M.D.A. for permitting him to use the shop for running a flour mill. The Housing Board, which is the owner of the shop objected to it because the shop was leased only for running a specified trade, viz., provision store. Therefore, the fourth respondent could not be permitted to establish a flour mill in Shop No.1. The Housing Board in its counter-affidavit has stated as follows:

“It is respectfully submitted that the writ petitioner has been allotted a shop bearing No. 19, at MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam in the year 1983 itself, and he has also executed a lease-cum-sale agreement. It is admitted that the writ petitioner has been allotted the above shop to run a flour mill for a sum of Rs. 1, 05, 000 whereas the fourth respondent herein was allotted shop No.1, MMDA Colony, for a sum of Rs.51, 000 vide their order No.A84/720, dt. 23.7.81 only to run a provision store. It is further submitted that the fourth respondent ‘shop bearing No.1, MMDA Colony was notified only as a provision store whereas for shop Nos.18 and 19 the applicants were directed to specify the trade other than the trades which were already specif