Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5519
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
M/s. Sree Krishna Sweets P. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director, Coimbatore
Versus
Udumalpet Muniipality Rep. By its Commissioner, Tiruppur District & Another
W.P.No.18829 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009
Decided on : 14-12-2009
For the Petitioner:R. Sunilkumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 P. Srinivas, R2, R. Ravi, Advocates.
The operation of the sweet stall was deemed lawful as long as the petrol bunk was operational, and the municipality's authority to revoke licenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was discussed.
Headnote:
IOC Limited - Property Lease Dispute - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Model Agreement - The court discussed the lease agreement, subleasing, and the municipality's authority to revoke licenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The court emphasized that the sweet stall was not illegal or contrary to the terms of the license as long as the petrol bunk was operational.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, operated a sweet stall in a property leased by the first respondent to the second respondent for running a petrol bunk. The first respondent municipality attempted to remove the petitioner's stocks and closed the sweet stall without notice, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent's actions were highhanded and directed them to remove the lock from the petitioner's sweet stall within one week.
Issues: Dispute over the operation of a sweet stall in a property leased for a petrol bunk, unauthorized closure of the sweet stall by the first respondent, and the legality of the petitioner's business activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sweet stall was not illegal or contrary to the terms of the license as long as the petrol bunk was operational, and the first respondent's actions were unjustified.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the first respondent was directed to remove the lock from the petitioner's sweet stall within one week.
Heard both sides. The petitioner is a private limited company represented by its Managing Director. It is claimed that they are selling their sweets and other products in the name of "Krishna Sweets". They have outlets in many places both in India and outside India. In the property at No.120 Palani Road, Udamalpet, which is owned by the first respondent Municipality, the petitioner is having their sweet stall. The second respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short IOC), had taken the said property on lease from the first respondent during the year 1980 for the purpose of running a petrol bunk.
2. The property was leased out by the first respondent to the second respondent as a vacant site. After taking lease, the second respondent had put up required construction for running a petrol bunk as well as for running the sweet stall. It is claimed that the IOC is entitled to use the premises either by themselves or through their dealers as per the lease agreement with the first respondent. The IOC Limited was modernizing its petrol bunk for the development of its business and had taken several steps to cater to the needs of consumers. They are providing various facilities like medical shop, coffee shop, STD Booth, ATM Centre, departmental stores and sweet shops etc within the premises of the petrol bunk so that persons who enter to outlet for filling petrol for their vehicles will also enjoy comprehensive facilities. Catering to the needs of the public is the wholesome service provided by IOC Limited.
3. The IOC limited is running the petrol bunk through its retail dealer by name M.S.Mani and Co. at No.120, Palani Road, Udamalpet. The petitioner approached the second respondent expressing their willingness to set up a new sweet stall at their retail outlet. Accordingly, IOC Limited, by a letter, dated 20.4.2005 sought for permission of the Commissioner of the first respondent municipality to permit them to add the said facility to their outlet. The first respondent was convinced about the said facility. Therefore, IOC Limited after conducting negotiations, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 24. 2005. According to the MOU, the petitioner is entitled to have their sweet stall in the leasehold premises and an area of 164 sq.ft. was allotted to them.
4. The petitioner thereafter spent considerable amount in installing facilities, including interior work, illuminations, signage, security system etc. They also provided furniture, shelves for displaying the sweets and other eatables in an hygienic way. The petitioner had also obtained telephone connection in the said premises in their name and have installed refrigerator, computer, weighing scale, etc. The first respondent was fully aware of location of the said stall and the MOU signed between the petitioner and the second respondent. Even thereafter, the first respondent was accepting the remittance of license fee paid by the petitioner excepting for the period from 2006 to 2008 it was refused. But even then, they were not asked to vacate the premises.
.5. It was stated that on 24. 2005, a sum of Rs.750/-was paid towards trade licence fee in respect of the sweet stall. On the same day, the fee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was also paid. They were accepted by the municipality. The petitioner also remitted the license fee for the periods 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. As per MOU, the second respondent was collecting a particular percentage of amount on the turnover of the business and it will show that it is like a joint venture business. However, on 19. 2009, the first respondent came to the sweet stall along 20 persons with a posse of police man and started removing the stocks of the petitioner in the premises. The stock worth Rs.20000/- was indiscriminately thrown out and closed the shop and bolted the door with their own lock, despite objections by the employees of petitioner company. No notice was given to the petitioner or to the s
