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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
V. Krishnamurthy - Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board, Chennai and Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 19392 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 22804 of 2018
Decided On : 10-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghul Balaji For M/s. G.R. Associates
For the Respondent: Mr. Cheranan Mohan For M/s. King and Patridge, Mr. Srinivasa Moorthy

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Cantonments Act, 2006 – Sections, 2d, 10, 61, 57, 93, 247, 248, 238 , 239(1), , 293, 249, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344 and 345 - Injury Case on Hand - Tender both at Domestic and International Terminals - Petitioner is proprietor of aviation express which is a cab service running at airport pursuant to airport authority of tender both at domestic and international terminals for last - Earlier parking for cars was provided in airport itself but Petitioner was recently required to vacate as airport authority of required space for its use - In order to fulfil contract a nearby place was sought and on a rental agreement was entered into between one director and petitioner in respect of premises under reference to specify requirements of car maintenance shed fuel storage tank with dispensing pump toilet bathrooms etc for its employees which is a basic amenity to be provided - Also that temporary structures were put up for car maintenance sheds – Held, there is a failure on his part to perform that duty function of such writ is to compel performance of public duty as per decision and others - It must be borne in mind that is a discretionary remedy and not of right - As a general rule a is not issued in anticipation of an Injury - In instant case on hand although petitioner has filed a review petition before 3rd respondent/secretary union of ministry of defence New delhi he is yet to establish his legal right in a crystalline manner, in regard to maintainability of same in law - Viewed in this real and proper perspective, this court is of considered opinion that filing of Writ by petitioner before this court is a premature and Otiose one - When petitioner has filed review petition coupled with stay petition before 3rd Respondent, well before filing of present Writ Petition before this Court and further that when same are admittedly pending, then for same relief Petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court as he cannot maintain a parallel proceedings by filing present Writ petition before this Court - Looking at from any angle - Petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in forbearing the 1st Respondent/Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board, St. Thomas Mount cum Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 016 from demolishing the structure belonging to him at GLRS No. 388/109, 388/116 in Door No. 2/52 & 2/53, Veteran Lines, Cantonment, Pallavaram, Chennai, pending disposal of the Review Application filed under Section 57 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 before the 3rd Respondent.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Facts of the Case :

3.1. According to the Petitioner, he is the Proprietor of Aviation Express, which is a 24 Hour Cab Service running at Chennai Airport, pursuant to Airport Authority of India's Tender both at Domestic and International Terminals for the last 30 years. Earlier, the parking for the cars was provided in the Airport itself, but the Petitioner was recently required to vacate as the 'Airport Authority of India' required the space for its use. In order to fulfil the contract, a nearby place was sought and on 23.01.2017 a Rental Agreement was entered into between one C.Suresh, Director of M/s. Chelliah Chandar Buildings (Landlord) and the Petitioner in respect of the premises under reference to specify the requirements of car maintenance shed, fuel storage tank with dispensing pump, toilet bathrooms etc. for its employees, which is a basic amenity to be provided. Also that, Temporary structures were put up for car maintenance sheds.

3.2. In so far as the permission for fuel storage tank is concerned, appropriate permissions under Petroleum and Explosive Acts were applied for from the Concerned Authorities. Letter of communications seeking appropriate permissions and no objection given by the Central Government, Fire Department and the Indian Oil Corporations willingness to supply was enclosed in the typed set of papers filed along with the Appeal.

3.3. Although the Petitioner was under the impression that being temporary structures, approval from Cantonment need not be required, on advice and by way of abundant caution on 12.05.2017, a letter seeking for an approval in regard to the erection of Asbestos shed in the Land comprising at New No. 2/53 Cantonment Pallavaram in RS.No.894 & 896 was sent by him to the 2nd Respondent together with a detailed site plan indicating the area with definitions. In the meanwhile, on 15.05.2017 show cause notices were received calling upon the Landowner to show, why action cannot be taken under the relevant provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006 alleging unauthorised construction.

3.4. The Petitioner, on receipt of the five notices dated 05.05.2017 and 15.05.2017, sent a reply to the 1st Respondent stating that the constructions related to the subject matter falls under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Explosives Act, 1884. Further, the constructions put up in the premises are temporary in nature and are subject to numerous applications projected before the concerned authorities. By way of abundant caution, he had applied for permission before the Respondent Cantonment through letter dated 12.05.2017 for regularising the temporary asbestos shed and toilets constructed. Hence, there is no violation, since the Petitioner had complied with all the requirements.

3.5. The stand of the Petitioner is that on 31.07.2017 he sent a letter to the 2nd Respondent/General Officer, Commanding in Chief Ministry of Defence, Southern Command, Pune making a request for regularising the temporary asbestos shed constructed in both premises Door No. 2/53 in Survey No. 894 and No. 2/52 in Survey No.896 and further stated that the diesel tank installed in Door No. 2/52 is not in operating stage, since license from the explosives department is waited. When the Petitioner's request was still pending, on 20.09.2017 a show cause notice under Section 248(1) of the














































































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