Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S.S. SUBRAMANI
C. Sugumaran
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Collectors Office, Ooty & Others
W.P. Nos. 7477; 7694 & 10451 of 1998 & Review Application No. 35 of 1998 in Writ Petition No. 7694 of 1998
Decided On :Decided On : 17-09-1998
AUCTION - LIQUOR - RETAIL VEND - AREA - DIVISION OF WARDS - REALLOCATION - LICENCE - GRANT - REVIEW - FRAUD - COURT ORDER - EFFECT - REVOCATION - RESTORATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the highest bidder for Shop No. 72 in Coonoor Municipality, sought a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to strictly follow the areas earmarked in G.O. Ms. No. 135, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (M. Ele.) dated 11.6.1996, while granting a license to run a retail shop for selling IMFL in Coonoor area. The petitioner had deposited the entire amount and located a shop in Ward No. 21. The petitioner contended that as per the G.O., the area coming under Ward No. 21, including V.P. Street, was allocated to him. The third respondent, the highest bidder for Shop No. 71 in Ward No. 21, was trying to locate his shop in V.P. Street with political influence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to conduct his business in V.P. Street as it was included in Ward No. 21 as per the auction list. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application to issue Form III license to run shop No. 72 in Ward No. 21 at V.P. Street, Coonoor Municipality and pass an order within 24 hours. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as he had obtained the order by playing fraud on the court. The court set aside its earlier order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The court also allowed the writ petition filed by the third respondent and directed the respondents to cancel the license issued to the petitioner to conduct business in V.P. Street.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to conduct his business in V.P. Street as it was included in Ward No. 21 as per the auction list? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief as he had obtained the order by playing fraud on the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to conduct his business in V.P. Street as it was included in Ward No. 21 as per the auction list. The court relied on the G.O. Ms. No. 135, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (M. Ele.) dated 11.6.1996, which allocated the area coming under Ward No. 21, including V.P. Street, to the petitioner. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as he had obtained the order by playing fraud on the court. The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and misled the court to obtain the order. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, where it was held that a person whose claim is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court, and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
Final Decision: The court set aside its earlier order and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The court also allowed the writ petition filed by the third respondent and directed the respondents to cancel the license issued to the petitioner to conduct business in V.P. Street.
1. In W.P. No. 7477 of 1998, petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to strictly follow the areas earmarked in G.O. Ms. No. 135, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (M. Ele.) dated 11.6.19% while granting licence to run retail shop for selling IMFL in Coonoor area, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is said that in Coonoor Municipality, auction for sale of IMFL liquor was conducted, and petitioner was the highest bidder for Shop No. 72 for Rs. 14,01,000/-. The petitioner also deposited the entire amount, and, as per auction conditions, after the bid, he has located a shop in Ward No. 21. It is said that as per G.O. Ms. No. 135, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (M. Ele.) dated 11.6.96, the Government of Tamil Nadu has bifurcated the ward division in the Municipalities on the basis of the strength of Municipal Councils. As per the abovesaid G.O., the Coonoor Municipality has been divided into 30 wards and the shop No. 72 for which he has made a bid and deposited the sum of Rs. 14,01,000/- is located in Ward No. 21. As per the abovesaid G.O., the Coonoor Municipality has allocated the area coming under Ward No. 21 as detailed in paragraph 3 of the affidavit. One of the areas is V.P. Street. According to petitioner, he is entitled to locate his retail shop No. 72 in any place mentioned in Ward No. 21 and he has selected a shop in V.P. Street. The additionally impleaded third respondent-Madhusudhanan is the highest bidder in respect of Shop No. 71 in Ward No. 21. According to the petitioner, third respondent has to locate his shop only in any one of the areas coming under Ward No. 20. But, with political influence, he is trying to locate his Shop No. 71 in V.P. Street which belongs to Shop No. 72 (Ward No. 21). It is und er the above circumstances, petitioner wanted to compel the Authorities to strictly adhere “to G.O. Ms. No. 135, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (M. Ele.) dated 11.6.19% and thus prevent the third respondent from locating the shop in any portion of new Ward No. 21 which include V.P. Street also.
3. When the matter came up for admission on 2.6.1998, 1 ordered notice of motion. Interim injunction was also granted till 31.7.1998. It is said that even before the Writ Petition was filed on 25.5.1998, the additionally impleaded third respondent was granted licence to conduct liquor shop at V.P. Street. The matter was not pursued thereafter. The interim injunction was also not extended. Whileso, the very same petitioner filed W.P. 7694 of 1998, seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to issue Form III licence in his favour to run Shop No. 72 (Ward No. 21) at V.P. Street, Coonoor Municipality and thus render justice.
4. Third respondent in the earlier Writ Petition was not made a party to W.P. No. 7694 of 1998. Similar averments were made in W.P. 7694 of 1998 also. The reason for filing the second Writ Petition was that the respondents are refusing to issue licence to the petitioner herein to conduct liquor shop at V.P. Street, in Ward No. 21. According to him, since V.P. Street is included in Ward No. 21, and the area is included within his Ward, he is entitled to do business therein. Even though various demands were made and representations were also given to respondents, to grant him licence to locate a shop in V.P. Street, the same was not issued.
5. In that case, when the Writ Petition came for admission, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice, and the case was adjourned by a few days for getting instructions. In that Writ Petition, petitioner produced only the latest division of Wards of 19% in which V.P. Street was included in Ward No. 21. The case was posted on 24.6.1998, and none of the Counsel appeared due to advocates boycott Petitioner appeared in person and plea
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
