Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Mala, J
D.Tangaradjou – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Commune Panchayat Office, Ariyankuppam – Respondent
WP No. 7604 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Chandrasekaran, For Mr.K.Prem Anand
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar, GA For R1, Mr.K.Sasindran, For R2, Mr.P.Naveen Prasad, For R3
Court affirmed the right to renew a Trade License independent of ongoing civil disputes regarding property ownership.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of certiorarified mandamus - Seeking renewal of Trade License - Petitioner claimed ownership of Marriage Hall due to a purchase and sought renewal after previous license expired - Renewal suspended due to pending civil dispute - Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the renewal as no rival claim existed at that point. (Paras 10, 15)
(B) Trade License - Entitlement to renewal - The court distinguished the need for a claimant to possess a valid Trade License separate from the ongoing disputes in civil court regarding ownership and possession. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner purchased Marriage Hall and applied for renewal after previous owner's license expired. Dispute arose with another respondent claiming rights through a lease agreement, leading to litigation. Court ruled on relevance of ownership vs pending civil disputes.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order to suspend the license was quashed due to the 1st respondent’s admission of no objection for renewal; the respondent is obliged to renew the license in accordance with timelines specified.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to license renewal despite ongoing civil disputes regarding the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that previous license owners' agreements and disputes are irrelevant to the renewal of a validly applied license; thus granting the petitioner the entitlement to renew.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed. Direction issued for renewal of the applicant's Trade License within specified time.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court addresses the entitlement for license renewal irrespective of civil disputes. (Para 10) |
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order (1)
dated 09.09.2024 passed by the 1st respondent insofar as the petitioner case is concerned and to direct the 1st respondent to renew the Trade License No.11202100007 of the Marriage Hall, namely, M/s.Meenakshi Sivapakkiam Mahal, in the name of the petitioner by considering his representation dated
05.07.2024.
The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the Marriage (2)
Hall by name M/s.Meenakshi Sivapakkiam Mahal. The petitioner purchased the Marriage Hall at RS.No.48/22 and 48/37, Patta No.133[N], Plot No.189, Cuddalore Main Road, Thavalakuppam Revenue Village, Ariyankuppam Commune Panchayat, Puducherry under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.10.2023. The said Marriage Hall originally belonged to one Mr.Jayabalan, husband of the 3rd respondent herein. During the lifetime of the 3rd respondent's husband, the Trade License was issued to him and he was running the Marriage Hall peacefully and in full possession and enjoyment of the same. As the 3rd respondent's husband died issueless, the 3rd respondent sold the Marriage Hall to the petitioner herein.
In pursuance of the sale, the revenue records, EB connection and Municipal (3)
Tax Assessment were also changed in the name of the petitioner herein. While so, the petitioner submitted applications for renewal of the Trade License on 08.01.2024 and on 05.07.2024, as the Trade License issued to the petitioner's vendor's [3rd respondent] husband, expired on 31.03.2024. To the shock and dismay of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein, who had no right or title to the said Marriage Hall, also applied for renewal of Trade License for the petitioner's Marriage Hall vide application dated 08.04.2024. The petitioner also came to know that the 2nd respondent filed a writ petition in WP.No.16044/2024 for a mandamus to dispose of his representation and this Court, in the said writ petition, vide order dated 21.06.2024, directed the 1st respondent herein to dispose of the applications of the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent in the manner known to law. Thereafter, the 1st respondent conducted an enquiry in which, the 3rd respondent herein, the vendor of the petitioner, gave consent for renewal of the said Trade License in favour of the petitioner. While so, the petitioner was under the impression that in view of the no objection of the vendor, the 1st respondent would renew the License in his favou, but, to his dismay, the 1st respondent, vide the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, suspended the License of the Marriage Hall till the disposal of the suit in OS.No.1543/2023 filed by the 2nd respondent herein. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid prayer.
The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that the petitioner was (4)
entitled to the renewal of Trade License. However, the 1st respondent stated that since a civil suit was pending, a direction was issued to suspend the Trade License till the disposal of the same. The 1st respondent, in the counter, further stated that the writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent in WP.No.28876/2024 against the impugned order was dismissed by this Court and therefore, in the absence of a rival claim for renewal of License, the 1st respondent had no objection to renew the Trade License in favour of the petitioner.
The 2nd respondent filed the counter affidavit stating inter alia, that the (5)
petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was in possession of the Marriage hall under a Lease Agreement of the year 2018 executed by the 3rd respondent's husband late Mr.Jayabalan, in his favour. The 2nd respondent further submitted that there was a civil dispute pending between the 3rd respondent and himself and that the 3rd respondent, with a view to illegally
