SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 237

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., represented by its General Manager/T.A., Neyveli
Versus
M/s.Hotel Blue Diamond represented by its Partner, T.Mani, Neyveli
C.R.P.No.3790 of 1999/C.M.P.No.455 of 2000
Decided On : 29-02-2000

Advocates:
N.A.K.Sharma, for Petitioner. K.V.Venkatapathy, Senior Counsel, for
K.V.Sundararajan, for Respondent.

Where defendant has right to decide on issuing no objection certificate, court cannot compel defendant.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.39, Rule 1 - Interim injunction -Where defendant has right to decide on issuing no objection certificate, court cannot compel defendant.

Judgment :

Defendant in O.S.No.106 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court at Virudhachalam, is the revision petitioner. Plaintiff filed a suit for the following reliefs:

“(i) to pass a decree declaring that the order dated 15. 1998 No.D3/L83/GM/TA/Es -111/98 is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unjust;

(ii) to stay the operation of the order dated 15. 1998 passed in Order No.D3/L83 GM/TA/ES-111/98 till the disposal of the suit;

(iii) to direct the defendant to pay the costs of this suit; and

(iv) to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Thematerial averments in the plaint could be summarised thus:

The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm, which is running a drive-in-restaurant under the name and style of ‘Hotel Blue Diamond’. The defendant which is a Government of India undertaking allotted an extent of 3 acres of land to the plaintiff for the said purpose and the same is covered by a registered lease deed dated 29. 1982. On the basis of the lease deed executed by the defendant, the plaintiff has put up a building to attract tourists, officials and foreigners who visit Neyveli, Plaintiff has also constructed 33 luxury rooms and set up a high class sophisticated hygienic restaurant of international level and standards catering to the needs of foreigners and other businessmen from all over the country, who are having dealings with the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. In or about 1995, the Tourism Department advised the plaintiff to have a bar attached to the restaurant in order to cater the needs of tourists and visitors from abroad visiting Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The plaintiff applied on 9. 1995 to the competent authority for the issuance of ‘no objection certificate’. It is said that the no objection certificate is very essential in order to run a bar in a restaurant. It is further averred that the then Deputy General Manager/Township Administrative Officer, who was the competent authority to issue ‘no objection certificate’. After due deliberation of all relevant facts, the Deputy General Manager (Township Administrative Officer), granted no objection certificate on 19. 1995 as per letter No.ES-3/TA/81. It is said that before granting no objection certificate, the Township Administrative Officer, inspected the Hotel and only after getting fully satisfied, he issued no objection certificate. The Plaintiff after observing all legal formalities and after strict compliance with the conditions of FL-3 licence, applied to the State Government for licence. The State Government also issued FL-3 licence to the plaintiff to run a permit room in the restaurant. Even though no objection certificate was issued in the year 1995, the plaintiff was able to get licence only on 20.8.1997. After issuance of no objection certificate by the defendant, the plaintiff put up a luxurious room for housing the bar, a conference hall and other necessary additions. The plaintiff have also invested more than Rs.15,00,000 for making the additions. According to the plaintiff, it invested huge amounts only in the fond hope that the licence will be renewed automatically from 33. 1998. The plaintiff long prior to 33. 1998 applied for renewal of licence. The Collector of South Arcot observed all the formalities and recommended for the renewal of licence for a further period. The Assistant Commissioner, Cuddalore also authorised the plaintiff to have the permit till 33. 1998. Whileso, the defendant issued an order dated 15. 1998 that the no objection certificate issued by it, was cancelled. The letter also directed the plaintiff to stop the liquor bar forthwith. The reason stated was that there were objections and protests from the public. It was also said in that order that the no objection certificate was issued by a person not authorised to do so. According to the plaintiff, it has not violated any of the conditions of the lease deed and the no objection certificate



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top