IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
R. Radha - Petitioner
Versus
The State, Represented by the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.Nos.10599 & 10602 of 2023 and W.M.P. Nos.10550, 10553, 10555 & 10556 of 2023
Decided On : 06-04-2023
Writ Petition - Rent Enhancement - G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007 - Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notices issued by the Coonoor Municipality for rent enhancement based on G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007. The petitioners, licensees of shops, contested the rent increase from Rs.1156/- to Rs.7400/- and from Rs.1704/- to Rs.8450/-, respectively.
Finding of the Court:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the rent revision under G.O.Ms.No.92. It emphasized the importance of timely disposal of vacate stay petitions and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
Issues: Validity of rent revision under G.O.Ms.No.92, delay in disposal of vacate stay petitions, abuse of interim orders
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the rent revision under G.O.Ms.No.92 was reasonable and in the public interest. It emphasized the mandatory nature of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to pay the revised rent or vacate the premises. The Registry was instructed to ensure periodic listing of cases with interim orders to prevent injustice and financial loss to the State and its organizations.
ORDER :
(Common Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records with respect to the impugned notice dated 25.10.2021 in Na.Ka.N:A4/670/2016 issued by the respondents 2 & 3 and quash the same.)
The notices issued to the petitioners dated 25.10.2021 issued by the Commissioner, Coonoor Municipality are under challenge in the present writ petitions.
2. The impugned notices were issued based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007 and based on the resolution passed by the Municipal Council on 15.02.2021.
3. In respect of W.P.No.10599 of 2023, the petitioner states that she is a licensee of a shop bearing No.505 belonging to Coonoor Municipality and the monthly rent for the said shop during the year 2016 after periodical enhancement was Rs.1156/-, excluding GST. The petitioner states that she is paying the monthly rent regularly to the respondent till August 2021. Third September 2021 onwards, the respondents have not received the rent and issued a notice on 25.10.2021, enhancing the rent from Rs.1156/- to Rs.7400/- with effect from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019. Thereafter from 01.07.2019 to 30.06.2022, the rent was increased to Rs.8510/-.
3.1. In respect of W.P.No.10602 of 2023, the petitioner states that she is a licensee of a shop bearing No.2-GF-M belonging to Coonoor Municipality and the monthly rent for the said shop during the year 2016 after periodical enhancement was Rs.1704/-, excluding GST. The petitioner states that she is paying the monthly rent regularly to the respondent till August 2021. Third September 2021 onwards, the respondents have not received the rent and issued a notice on 25.10.2021, enhancing the rent from Rs.1704/- to Rs.8450/- with effect from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2019. Thereafter from 01.07.2019 to 30.06.2022, the rent was increased to Rs.9718/-.
4. The similarly placed shop owners in the said market filed writ petitions and the said writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Against the dismissal, Writ Appeals were filed and an interim stay was granted by this Court on condition to pay 50% of the enhanced rent during the pendency of the writ appeals.
5. Relying on the interim order passed by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that the interim stay is to be granted in the present cases also and the petitioners are ready to pay 50% of the enhanced rent.
6. Admittedly, earlier writ petitions filed by the similarly placed shop owners were dismissed on merits. The discretionary interim orders cannot be construed as a binding precedent. In the event of keeping the writ petitions pending for long years, the same will affect the Revenue of the Municipality. In such circumstances, the Municipal Administration would not be in a position to implement the welfare schemes in the interest of public in that locality. The Revenue of the State is of paramount importance and Courts are to be cautious, while granting such interim orders in State Revenue matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India time and again emphasized that interim orders, affecting the Revenue of the State is to be granted only on exceptional circumstances, where there is an unconstitutionality or direct violations of the Statues in force. Routine grant of interim orders and keeping the matters pending for years together would cause irreparable financial loss to the State Exchequer and in the present cases to the Revenue of the Municipal Administration.
7. Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India states as follows:
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The mandatory nature of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
(1) An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to long passage of time – If a High Court concludes after hearing all concerned p....
Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India is mandatory, leading to the automatic vacation of interim orders if not disposed of within two weeks.
Stay of criminal proceedings by the High Courts should not be considered as an incentive to cause delay in the proceedings; that order granting stay or extending it must be a speaking order and stay ....
The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.
The High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when effective alternative remedies under the SARFAESI Act are available; exceptions apply in cases of jurisdictional errors, frau....
The judgment emphasizes the need for a speaking order to extend the stay beyond six months, as per the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of I....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.