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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 1918

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
M. JAICHANDREN & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
M. Kanagaraj & Another
Versus
The District Collector & the President
W.A. (MD) Nos. 880 to 882 of 2014 & M.P (MD) Nos. 1, 1 & 1 of 2014
Decided on: 09-07-2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Veera Kathiravan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A.K. Baskarapandian, Special Govt. Pleader.

The court emphasized the principle that parties cannot claim for extension of a licence period if they have consented to vacate the premises as per the agreement.

Headnote:

licence agreement - Commercial Use of Beach Area - [Public Works Department Act, Section 5(1)(a); Indian Contract Act, Section 56] - The court discussed the licence agreement entered into between the parties for the commercial use of the beach area, highlighting the provision that the petitioners agreed to vacate the premises on the expiry of the licence period. The court emphasized that the petitioners cannot claim for extension of the licence period, as they had consented to vacate the premises as per the agreement.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioners, highest bidders in an auction, entered into a licence agreement with the respondent for commercial use of a beach area. After the expiry of the licence period, they sought extension citing loss incurred in running the business.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners had agreed to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence period and rejected their claim for extension, directing them to seek remedy through separate legal proceedings.

Issues: Extension of licence period, Claim for loss incurred, Interpretation of licence agreement

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioners, having consented to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence period, cannot claim for extension, as per the terms of the agreement.

Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to seek remedy through separate legal proceedings.

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. These writ appeals have been filed challenging the common order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in W.P(MD)Nos.8595, 8600 and 8598 of 2014, dated 27.06.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred according to their litigative status in the writ petition.

3. Necessary facts which are germane for the disposal of these writ appeals, are set out thus:

3.1. Thoothukudi District Welfare Committee is maintaining the Muthunagar Beach at Muthu Nagar in Thoothukudi. The said Committee has decided to grant licence to use the area in the Beach on commercial purpose such as installing rattinam and other accessories, canteen and for temporary shops so as to entertain the general public, who are visiting the Muthu Nagar Beach. The Committee has also called for tender/auction to allot the land in the said Beach for that purpose. The writ petitioners had submitted their tender offering to install certain rattinams and other entertainment accessories, shops and canteen also, by quoting their price.

3.2. The said Committee declared the writ petitioners as the highest bidders in the tender/auction held on 16.05.2013 and accordingly, granted licence to use the land in the Muthu Nagar Beach for commercial purpose by installing the Rattinam and other entertainment accessories, temporary shops and canteen. In this regard, a license agreement was also entered into between the respondent and the petitioners on 23.05.2013, which is for a period of one year, ending with 22.05.2014. As per the said licence agreement, the petitioners have installed all the equipments in the place earmarked by the authorities, namely, Public Works Department. The permission was given to them to run the rattinams and other accessories, small shops and canteens till 10.00 p.m.

3.3. The writ petitioners have to pay necessary charges for the actual consumption of electricity and water. Whereas it is the specific plea of the writ petitioners that they were compelled to close the premises by 8.30 p.m. Due to low voltage, the writ petitioners were compelled to use the Generators, by which, the had incurred heavy loss. Hence, they made the representations to the respondent seeking for supply of electricity with adequate voltage to the licensed premises and also for extension of license for two more years.

3.4. Since the said representations were not considered, they filed the writ petitions in W.P(MD) Nos.6988 to 6970 of 2014, for a Mandamus to direct the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioners for extension of licence period for two more years from 23.05.2014. This Court, by order dated 23.04.2014, has directed the respondent to consider those representations and pass an order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Then only, the respondent, on considering the representations of the writ petitioners, rejected the same by way of the impugned order dated 21.05.2014.

3.5. At the same time, tender notice in respect of four items have been called for by the office of the District Collector, (Development Wing), Thoothukudi vide notice in Na.Ka.No.V7/171/2013, dated 21.05.2014 fixing the date of receipt of tenders from 23.05.2014 to 30.05.2014 (upto 03.00 p.m) and opening of tenders at 4.00 p.m. on 30.05.2014 and giving liberty to the petitioners to participate in the tenders. The tenders were received and opened on the date fixed (30.05.2014 at 4.00 p.m.). But, the petitioners did not participate in the said tender. Therefore, they filed the writ petitions to quash the said impugned order dated 21.05.2014 as well as tender schedule notification in Na.Ka.No.Va7/171/2013 dated 21.05.2014 published in Daily Thanthi dated 23.05.2014 insofar as it relates to Sl.Nos.1 to 3 respectively and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent therein to extend the license period for two more years from 23.05.2014 for running rattinam, temporary shop and












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