Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
R.Radha – Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented by the Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009 – Respondent
W.P.No.10599/2023 | W.P.No.10602/2023 | W.M.P.Nos.10550 | W.M.P.Nos.10553 | W.M.P.Nos.10555 | W.M.P.Nos.10556

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.A.Vimal Mohan
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Selvaraj, Mr.R.Kumaravel

Article 226(3) of the Constitution mandates timely resolution of interim order applications; failure to comply leads to automatic vacation of the order.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Challenge to impugned notice enhancing rent - The petitioners challenged notices issued by municipal authorities based on a government order and a council resolution. The petitioners' argument was that the enhanced rent was unreasonable. Court found the government order valid and in the interest of public revenue. Court stressed the importance of balance in granting interim orders affecting state revenues. The court underscored adverse implications to public revenue from prolonged interim orders, emphasizing that interim relief must uphold statutory regulations. (Paras 6, 8, 27)

(B) Interim Orders - The court noted that interim orders affecting state revenue should only be granted on exceptional grounds, citing potential for abuse of judicial process in such cases. Courts must ensure timely disposal of applications to vacate interim orders per Article 226(3) to prevent undue delay. (Paras 9, 12)

(C) Writ of Certiorari - The court upheld the validity of the municipal resolution and government order, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners who failed to demonstrate any new ground for reconsideration. (Paras 26, 28)

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, affirming the municipal and governmental authority in rent revision.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed. No costs.

Table of Content
1. notices issued under government order (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners challenging rent increases (Para 3 , 4)
3. applicability of interim orders in state matters (Para 5 , 6 , 18)
4. mandatory nature of article 226(3) (Para 7 , 16)
5. judicial responsibility regarding interim orders (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
6. concerns over administrative delays (Para 13 , 15)
7. clarification of stay order's applicability (Para 17 , 19 , 21 , 22)
8. upheld validity of government's rent revision order (Para 23 , 24 , 27)
9. writ petitions dismissed; payment of revised rent mandatory (Para 28 , 30)

COMMON ORDER

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:

“where any p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58728

Article 226(3) of the Constitution mandates timely resolution of interim order applications; failure to comply leads to automatic vacation of the order.

Cases Referred (1)