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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5115

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Chennai Retail Flower Merchant's Welfare Association rep. By its President & Another
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai & Others
W.P.NOs.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009 and W.P.M.P.NO. 36204 OF 2004 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2009
Decided On : 27-11-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:R. Gandhi, SC for R.G. Narendhiran, Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, SC for Ms. C. Uma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: I. Paranthaman for CMDA, Md.Ghouse for Chennai Corporation.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of statutory authorities understanding and complying with court directions, particularly in matters involving the interpretation and application of statutory provisions.

Headnote:

CMDA - Wholesale Trade in Flower/Perishable Goods - Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996) - Sections 2(7), 2(14), 4, 7(1), 21 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act 1996, particularly the definition of wholesale trade, the prohibition of trade in specified commodities outside the notified market area, and the penal provisions for violations. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to direct an enquiry and adherence to previous court orders.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute between the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants Welfare Association and the Koyambedu Malar Motha Vyabarigal Sangam regarding the wholesale trade of flower/fruit/vegetable in Chennai Metropolitan area, specifically in Badrian Street, and the direction to shift the trade to the Koyambedu Wholesale Market complex under the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act 1996.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents had disregarded previous court orders and passed an order in violation of the earlier court decision. It directed an enquiry and adherence to the previous Division Bench order, emphasizing the need for statutory authorities to understand and comply with court directions.

Issues: The issues involved the interpretation and application of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act 1996, the validity of the orders passed by the respondents, and the compliance with previous court decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of previous court orders, the need for an enquiry into the wholesale trade activities, and the importance of statutory authorities adhering to court directions.

Final Decision: The court directed an enquiry and adherence to the previous Division Bench order, and disposed of the writ petitions accordingly.

Judgment :-


Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.R.G.Narendran counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.29809 of 2004, Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel leading Ms.C.Uma, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.12909 of 2009, Mr.I.Paranthaman, learned counsel for CMDA and Mr.Md.Ghouse, learned counsel for Chennai Corporation.

2. W.P.No.29809 of 2004 is filed by Chennai Retail Flower Merchants Welfare Association represented by its President P.Dhanraj, having his office at No.20, Bathriyan Street, Chennai-600 001. The prayer in the writ petition was to set aside the order, dated 10. 2004 passed by the respondent CMDA, wherein and by which the members of the petitioner Association were directed to stop the wholesale trade in flower/fruit/vegetable immediately and shift the same to the Koyambedu Wholesale Market complex in terms of the notification issued under the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of location) Act 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996).

3. The writ petition was admitted on 110. 2004. Pending the writ petition, this Court passed the following orders in W.P.M.P.No.36204 of 2004, dated 110. 2004:

"On an earlier occasion when challenge was made to the proceedings of the Commissioner abandoning selling of perishable items in Koyambedu Market Complex, this Court quashed the said proceedings by order dated 111. 2002 in W.P.No.1272 of 2002 with a direction to the respondent to pass fresh orders. By the impugned order, the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, placed reliance in W.P.No.26053/2004 dated 19. 2004 passed by the Division bench to consider the representation of the petitioner therein for direction to stop the wholesale trade in perishable goods in Chennai Metropolitan Area except in Koyambedu wholesale Market Complex. The Division Bench has directed only reconsideration of the application. The impugned order has been passed without notice to the petitioner. Hence, there will be interim stay. Notice."

4. Though the interim order was granted at the stage of admission, the respondents have not so far filed any counter affidavit and had not taken any steps to vacate the stay granted.

5. It is at this juncture, Chennai Koyambedu Malar Motha Vyabarigal Sangam represented by its President M.D.Arul Viswasam had filed W.P.No.12909 of 2009 seeking for a prayer to the respondent CMDA and the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation not to permit the wholesale trade of perishable goods in Chennai Metropolitan area except in Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex which is specially notified as the Market Area under Section 2(7) read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 24/1996).

6. When that writ petition came up for hearing, on behalf of the respondent CMDA, the Commissioner for Corporation, notice was taken. Though an interim injunction was sought for restraining the respondents from permitting the wholesale trade of perishable goods in Badhrian Street and Muchi Street in George Town area, no order was given. However, a counter affidavit, dated 29. 2009 was filed by the CMDA.

7. In that case, it was stated that flower traders in Badrian Street are carrying flower wholesale trade against the statutory prohibition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 24/1996. Once trade of a particular commodity is prohibited under the statute, no one can carry on such trade in a prohibited area. Permitting to carry on such wholesale flower trade either by direct consumption or purchase or sell will also be against the provisions of the Act. The Act has come into force with effect from 28. 1996.

8. It was also stated that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, dated 19. 2004, the CMDA had issued notice, dated 110. 2004 to all the wholesale traders of Badrian Street, George Town to stop wholesale trade in flower market and shift it to Koyambedu. However, an association called Chennai Ret



























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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top