Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4393
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
The Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madurai - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Madurai & Others - Respondents
W.A.(MD) No. 715 of 2018 & C.M.P.(MD) No. 6905 of 2018 & W.P.(MD) No. 14883 of 2018 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 13428 & 13429 of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2018
For the Appellant :M. Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel for M. Sridher, Advocate.
For the Respondents:J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader, S. Jeya Singh, K. Gnanadesikan, Senior Counsel for K.K. Senthil, Advocates.
Headnote:
Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 - Section 9(3) - NOC - Rules 144,150, and 152(1),(i),(ii) - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited - Suit for vacant possession - Lease agreement - There was a lease agreement between CALTEX Limited predecessor-in-interest of appellant - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and father of sixth respondent for a period of ten years which got extended for a period of twenty years with an option for renewal - In meanwhile predecessor-in-interest became Government Company and thereafter got amalgamated with HPCL - Appellant became lessee - Sixth respondent after having became lessor and after expiry of lease period requested appellant vide letter to handover vacant possession - But appellant exercising option clause wanted to extend lease for a period of thirty years - However a lease deed was entered into which was registered for period from - Sixth respondent requested appellant to handover possession upon expiry of lease and sent a number of letters to appellant reiterating his request and also issued a legal notice seeking to handover vacant possession after removing all accessories - But appellant requested sixth respondent to extend lease further - Since vacant possession was not handed over sixth respondent filed a suit in seeking for a direction to appellant to deliver vacant possession and damages - In suit upon receipt of summons within stipulated time appellant filed a petition under section 9(3) of Madras City Tenants Protection Act seeking a direction to sixth respondent to execute sale deed in favour of appellant - Additional Subordinate Judge Madurai dismissed said petition which was questioned before I Additional District Judge Madurai - Said appeal was also dismissed and revision filed by appellant against said order before this Court in also met with same fate - Appellant took matter to Honble Apex Court in wherein an interim order of status quo on possession until further orders was ordered - In meantime an ex-parte decree was passed in suit filed by sixth respondent against appellant - A petition filed to set aside said order was also dismissed - While things stood so sixth respondent filed petitions before third and fourth respondents to cancel No Objection Certificates issued in favour of appellant - Fourth respondent rejected petitions vide letters which were questioned by sixth respondent before this Court in and this Court vide order allowing writ petition set aside impugned orders therein and remitted matter back to fourth respondent for fresh consideration - Sixth respondent was given liberty to approach third respondent with a fresh petition - Pursuant to said order a petition was filed before third respondent seeking to cancel NOC granted in favour of appellant - Third respondent after hearing parties relying upon judgment of Honble Apex Court in and others passed order cancelling No Objection Certificate Questioning same appellant approached this Court - Writ court passed impugned order rejecting prayer of appellant - Hence present appeal - Whether order of third respondent cancelling NOC granted in favour of appellant for using site in dispute for storing petroleum whether appellant has right use place for storing petroleum Whether appellant can take umbrage under interim order granted by Honble Supreme Court which is limited to maintain status quo only with respect to possession for purpose of storing petroleum - Whether observance of principles of natural justice was necessary for a just decision in facts of particular case - Held, Court are not concerned with these aspects in present case as issue relates to giving of notice before taking action - While emphasizing that principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula aforesaid instances are given - Court have highlighted jurisprudential basis of adhering to principles of natural justice which are grounded on doctrine of procedural fairness accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals etc - Nevertheless there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because evidence against individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing would make no difference-meaning that a hearing would not change ultimate conclusion reached by decision-maker-then no legal duty to supply a hearing arises - Such an approach was endorsed by Lord Wilberforce in who said that A breach of procedure cannot give a remedy in courts unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by failure - Court does not act in vain no one can complain of not being given an opportunity to make representations if such an opportunity would have availed him nothing - In such situations fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since right result can be secured without according such treatment to individual - Though Honble Supreme Court has observed that applicability of theory must be depend on facts of a particular case if admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion then there is no bar to apply theory - As mentioned above admitted facts which are not in dispute is anaylsed with touchstone of useless formality theory irresistible conclusion would be that giving an opportunity of being heard to appellant is an empty formality as it would never lead to any other decision but to cancel license - Hence viewed from any angle Court are of firm view that order of fourth respondent does not suffer from any illegality and same needs no interference from this Court There is no lease in subsistence and possession of appellant is protected only by interim order of status quo granted by Honble Apex Court from forceful dispossession - Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J.
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited preferred this appeal questioning the dismissal of its writ petition by the learned Single Judge via the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 made in W.P.(MD) No.22749 of 2017.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1. There was a lease agreement dated 28.02.1963 between CALTEX (INDIA) Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short, "HPCL") and the father of the sixth respondent, for a period of ten years, which got extended for a period of twenty years with an option for renewal on 01.12.1972, i.e., till 30.11.1992. In the meanwhile, the predecessor-in-interest became Government Company and thereafter, got amalgamated with HPCL on 09.05.1978. Thus, the appellant became lessee.
2.2. The sixth respondent, after having became lessor and after the expiry of the lease period, requested the appellant vide the letter dated 18.05.1992 to handover the vacant possession. But the appellant exercising the option clause wanted to extend the lease for a period of thirty years. However, a lease deed was entered into, which was registered on 14.11.2005, for the period from 01.12.1992 to 30.11.2012.
2.3. The sixth respondent requested the appellant on 28.11.2011 to handover the possession, upon expiry of lease on 30.11.2012 and sent a number of letters to the appellant reiterating his request and also issued a legal notice on 24.11.2012 seeking to handover the vacant possession, after removing all the accessories. But the appellant requested the sixth respondent to extend the lease further.
2.4. Since the vacant possession was not handed over, the sixth respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.203 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the appellant to deliver the vacant possession and damages. In the suit, upon receipt of summons, within the stipulated time, the appellant filed a petition in C.T.O.P.No.1 of 2013 under section 9(3) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, seeking a direction to the sixth respondent to execute sale deed in favour of the appellant. The learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissed the said petition on 24.06.2015, which was questioned before the I Additional District Judge, Madurai, in C.M.A.No.1 of 2016. The said appeal was also dismissed on 17.09.2016 and the revision filed by the appellant against the said order before this Court in CRP(MD) No.2626 of 2016 also met with the same fate on 02.06.2017. The appellant took the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No.32286 of 2017, wherein, an interim order of status quo on possession until further orders, was ordered on 14.12.2017. In the meantime, an ex-parte decree was passed in the suit filed by the sixth respondent against the appellant. A petition filed to set aside the said order was also dismissed.
2.5. While things stood so, the sixth respondent filed petitions before the third and fourth respondents to cancel the No Objection Certificates (NOC) issued in favour of the appellant. The fourth respondent rejected the petitions vide letters dated 17.03.2016 and 27.04.2016, which were questioned by the sixth respondent before this Court in W.P.(MD) No.16571 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 29.08.2017, allowing the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders therein and remitted the matter back to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. The sixth respondent was given liberty to approach the third respondent with a fresh petition.
2.6. Pursuant to the said order, a petition was filed before the third respondent seeking to cancel the NOC granted in favour of the appellant. The third respondent, after hearing the parties, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Albert Morris V. K. Chandrasekaran and others, (2006) 1 SCC 228, passed the order dated 05.12.2017 cancelling the No Objection Certificate dated 10.11.1962.
2.7. Questioning the same, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.
