Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3885
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
P. Nanci Vijayasundary
Versus
The Deputy Salt Commissioner Shastri Bhavan, Nungambakkam & Others
W.P.Nos.39588 to 39595 of 2004 & W.P.No.2475/2005 and WVMP.673 of 2005
Decided On : 29-10-2008
For the Petitioner:L. Muralikumaran, S. Parthasarathy, L. Muralikumaran, M. Lakshmipathi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, S.M. Deenadayalan, Advocate.
Writ petitions are not maintainable in contractual matters unless there is arbitrariness or unreasonableness, and alternative remedies should be exhausted before seeking writ relief.
Headnote:
lease determination - violation of lease conditions - principles of natural justice - maintainability of writ petitions in contractual matters
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted lease of lands for salt manufacturing but were found to be engaged in unauthorized prawn culture activity. The lease was determined by the 1st Respondent invoking clause 22 of the lease deed. The petitioners challenged the order, alleging non-furnishing of documents and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lease determination was based on violation of lease conditions and that the petitioners were engaged in unauthorized activities. The court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and dismissed the writ petitions as not maintainable in contractual matters.
Issues: Violation of lease conditions, non-furnishing of documents, violation of principles of natural justice, maintainability of writ petitions in contractual matters
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in contractual matters, writ petitions are not maintainable unless there is arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The court also highlighted the availability of alternative remedies and the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking writ relief.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions as not maintainable in contractual matters.
Petitioners seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent determining the lease by invoking clause 22 of the lease deed.
2. Since common points are involved, all Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of, by this common order.
3. Facts in nut shell which led to the filing of Writ Petitions are as follows:
.(i) Writ Petitioners are granted lease of the lands belonging to the salt department in Adhiramapattinam/Thambikottai salt factory for different spells. Lease deed was executed by the Writ Petitioners. Writ Petitioners are liable to pay the assignment fee based on manufacturing limit. During his visit to salt factory the Assistant Salt Commissioner noticed the indulgence of the Writ Petitioners in an unauthorized prawn culture activity and the matter was reported to the 1st Respondent.
.(ii) Writ Petitioners were served with show cause notice to stop the unauthorized activities of prawn culture and dismantle the prawn bunds. In response, the Petitioners have sent their reply denying indulgence in prawn culture activity. Upon consideration of the representation, by the impugned order dated 10.08.2004 invoking Clause 22 of the registered lease agreement the lease was determined with a direction to the 2nd Respondent to resume the lands in question. Challenging the impugned orders, Writ Petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions.
(iii) Grievance of the Petitioners is that the 1st Respondent has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the explanation given by the Petitioners and also based on extraneous material which was not even supplied to the Petitioners and hence, these writ petitions.
4. Mr. L. Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the 1st Respondent has failed to furnish the documents relied upon by him for passing the impugned order. Main grievance of the Petitioners is that no opportunity was given to the Writ Petitioners and the 2nd Respondent failed to take into consideration the explanation offered by the Petitioners and the impugned orders are vitiated by non-application of mind.
5. Refuting the contentions of the Petitioners, Mr. S.M. Deenadayalan, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that there was violation of terms and conditions of the lease agreement and therefore, lease was determined invoking clause 22 of the lease deed. It was further argued that before determining the lease sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Petitioners and there is no basis for the grievance of the Petitioners as to violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Drawing attention of the court to Clause 23 of the lease deed the learned counsel further argued that Writ Petitions are not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause. Petitioners were granted lease for manufacture of salt for different spells. The details of lease of the Writ Petitioners are as under:
ADIRAMPATNAM SALT FACTORY
W.P.Nos.
Name
L.No.
Date of Lease deed
Period of Lease
39588/2004 P.Nancy Vijayasundari 3 28.02.2003 010. 2002 to 010. 2022 (20 years)
39590/2004 M/s.South East Marines (Power Agent S.Jayakumar) 7 110. 2000 12.06.2000 to 13.01.2009 (Eight years, seven months and one day)
39591/2004 S.Raju 4 19.07.1989 01.01.1988 to 312. 2007 (20 years)
39592/2004 R.Krishnammal 8 112. 1996 01.01.1989 to 312. 2007 (19 years)
39594/2004 P.Amsammal 9 5/10/1995 01.01.1988 to 312. 2007 (20 years)
THAMBIKOTTAI SALT FACTORY
W.P.Nos.
Name L.No. W.P.No. & Date of Lease Period of Lease
39589/2004 S.J.Ahmed Thambi (S/o.late SK.Jamalludeen) 2 19.09.1991 19.01.1991 to 312. 2007 (16 years 347 days)
39593/2004 S.Iyappan 5 -28.07.2003 to 27.07.2008 (5 years)
39595/2004 M/s.Ram Marine Chemicals (M.P.T.Venkataraman) 6 110. 2003 11.07.2003 to 01.06.2008 ( 4 years and 326 days)
2475/2005 M/s.M.M.S.Md.Samshudeen Markayar 1 210. 1994 112. 1990 to 312. 2007 (17 years and 22 days)
7. During his visit to Adhirampattinam/Thambikottai salt factory, Assistant salt Commission
