Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1987
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
R. Mohan Bhaiya
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore & Another
W.P.No.6022 of 2012 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Decided on : 20-04-2012
For the Petitioner:AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Advocate for H. Rajasekar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 -Ms. P. Kavitha, Government Advocate, R2 - V.V. Sairam, Advocate.
Compliance with license renewal conditions and timely renewal of licenses are crucial for maintaining the legality of operating businesses under the Chennai City Police Act, 1888.
Headnote:
Chennai City Police Act - Renewal of Licence - Sections 36, 37, 76 - The court discussed the provisions of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, particularly Sections 36, 37, and 76, which empower the Commissioner of Police to impose conditions for granting and renewing licenses for public entertainment. The court emphasized the importance of complying with the prescribed conditions and highlighted the power of the Commissioner of Police to cancel or suspend licenses for breach of conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner entered into a lease agreement for a shop to run a billiards club. The first respondent rejected the renewal of the petitioner's license, citing non-compliance with conditions and failure to renew the license since 2007. The second respondent alleged that the petitioner was running the club illegally.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents for license renewal and had not complied with the renewal requirements. The court held that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Issues: Non-compliance with license renewal conditions, alleged illegal operation of the billiards club, and the rejection of the renewal application.
Ratio Decidendi: Failure to comply with license renewal requirements and non-renewal of the license since 2007 led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Act Referred
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement with the second respondent, in respect of Shop No.58, Azad Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. He had applied for a licence for running a billiards club in the said premises. The first respondent had issued a licence, dated 13.9.2001, bearing licence No.T1/165/B-2/2001-2002. The said licence had been renewed, periodically.
3. It had been further stated that the billiards club has been running, in the name of Club-9 billiards club, from the year, 2001, till date. While so, during the month of December, 2011, the second respondent had tried to evict the petitioner from the premises, with the help of local rowdy elements. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.2004 of 2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, seeking for a decree of injunction restraining the defendant therein, the second respondent in the present writ petition, from evicting the petitioner, from the premises in question, without following the due process of law. An order of interim injunction had also been granted in favour of the petitioner, by an order, dated 9.12.2011, made in I.A.No.2282 of 2011, in O.S.No.2004 of 2011.
4. It had been further stated that the petitioner had applied for renewal of licence in respect of the billiards club, for the year 2011-2012. However, the first respondent rejected the application of the petitioner, by the impugned proceedings, dated 30.1.2012, for the reasons specified therein.
5. The first respondent had stated in the impugned proceedings, dated 30.1.2012, that the petitioner had not produced the `No Objection Certificate' from the owner of the building in question, the copy of the lease agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent and the receipt of the property tax paid by the owner of the building. The first respondent had also stated that the licence of the petitioner cannot be renewed for the reason that the said licence had not been renewed, by the petitioner, from 1.4.2007, onwards.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the second respondent had objected to the granting of the licence, in favour of the petitioner, for running the billiards club, for the year, 2011-2012, by way of a petition, dated 5.12.2011, filed before the Inspector of Police, B2 R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore. Further, the application of the petitioner, for the renewal of the licence, had been rejected, as he has not enclosed the `No Objection Certificate', from the owner of the building in question. The copy of the lease agreement for the building, as well as the receipt showing the payment of property tax, in respect of the said property, had not been produced by the petitioner. The rejection of the application, for the renewal of the licence, had also been made, since, the petitioner had not renewed the licence, from 1.4.2007 onwards.
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent it has been stated that the petitioner has been running the billiards club in question, illegally, without having a valid licence, from the year 2008 onwards. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, by the first respondent, it has been stated that the petitioner had not renewed the licence, from 1.4.2007. The said fact had been suppressed by the petitioner.
8. It had also been stated that the petitioner had obtained an order of injunction before the civil Court, by misrepresentation, as if he is a lessee in the premies in question, on the basis of an oral lease. It had also been stated that the petitioner is not a tenant holding over, as claimed by him. He is only a licencee, whose licence had expired long back. Since, the petitioner has been carrying on illegal activities in the premises in question, the second respondent had
