R.Mohan Bhaiya.. v. The Commissioner of Police,Coimbatore. & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20-04-2012CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.6022 of 2012 andM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012R.Mohan Bhaiya.. Petitioner.Versus1. The Commissioner of Police,Coimbatore.2. Vijayalakshmi.. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callingfor the records related to the impugned proceedings inNa.Ka.No.T1/70614/2011 dated 30.1.2012 on the file of the firstrespondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct thefirst respondent to renew the licence for the petitioner's billiardsclub known as Club-9 situated at No.58, Azad Road, R.S.Puram,Coimbatore-2, for the year 2011-2012.For petitioner: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Advocate for Mr.H.RajasekarFor respondents : Ms.P.Kavitha Government Advocate (R1) Mr.V.V.Sairam (R2)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as thelearned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had entered into alease agreement with the second respondent, in respect of Shop No.58,Azad Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. He had applied for a licence forrunning a billiards club in the said premises. The first respondenthad issued a licence, dated 13.9.2001, bearing licence No.T1/165/B-2/2001-2002. The said licence had been renewed, periodically. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It had been further stated that the billiards club has beenrunning, in the name of Club-9 billiards club, from the year, 2001,till date. While so, during the month of December, 2011, the secondrespondent had tried to evict the petitioner from the premises, withthe help of local rowdy elements. Therefore, the petitioner had fileda suit, in O.S.No.2004 of 2011, on the file of the District MunsifCourt, Coimbatore, seeking for a decree of injunction restraining thedefendant therein, the second respondent in the present writpetition, from evicting the petitioner, from the premises inquestion, without following the due process of law. An order ofinterim injunction had also been granted in favour of the petitioner,by an order, dated 9.12.2011, made in I.A.No.2282 of 2011, inO.S.No.2004 of 2011.4. It had been further stated that the petitioner had applied forrenewal of licence in respect of the billiards club, for the year2011-2012. However, the first respondent rejected the application ofthe petitioner, by the impugned proceedings, dated 30.1.2012, for thereasons specified therein. 5. The first respondent had stated in the impugned proceedings,dated 30.1.2012, that the petitioner had not produced the `NoObjection Certificate' from the owner of the building in question,the copy of the lease agreement between the petitioner and the secondrespondent and the receipt of the property tax paid by the owner ofthe building. The first respondent had also stated that the licenceof the petitioner cannot be renewed for the reason that the saidlicence had not been renewed, by the petitioner, from 1.4.2007,onwards. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the firstrespondent, it has been stated that the second respondent hadobjected to the granting of the licence, in favour of the petitioner,for running the billiards club, for the year, 2011-2012, by way of apetition, dated 5.12.2011, filed before the Inspector of Police, B2R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore. Further, the application of thepetitioner, for the renewal of the licence, had been rejected, as hehas not enclosed the `No Objection Certificate', from the owner ofthe building in question. The copy of the lease agreement for thebuilding, as well as the receipt showing the payment of property tax,in respect of the said property, had not been produced by thepetitioner. The rejection of the application, for the renewal of thelicence, had also been made, since, the petitioner had not renewedthe licence, from 1.4.2007 onwards. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the secondrespondent it has been stated that the petitioner has been runningthe billiards club in question, illegally, without having a validlicence, from the year 2008 onwards. In the show cause notice issuedto the petitioner, by the first respondent, it has been stated that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner had not renewed the licence, from 1.4.2007. The saidfact had been suppressed by the petitioner. 8. It had also been stated that the petitioner had obtained anorder of injunction before the civil Court, by misrepresentation, asif he is a lessee in the premies in question, on the basis of an orallease. It had also been stated that the petitioner is not a tenantholding over, as claimed by him. He is only a licencee, whose licencehad expired long back. Since, the petitioner has been carrying onillegal activities in the premises in question, the second respondenthad not given the `No Objection Certificate', to the petitioner, torun the billards club in the premises in question. In suchcircumstances, the second respondent had been constrained to file apolice complaint, as well as a private complaint, based on which aFirst Information Report had been registered, on the file of theInspector of Police, B2 R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore, inCrime No.2315 of 2011. While so, the first respondent had rejectedthe request of the petitioner for the renewal of the licence,rightly, under Sections 36 , 37 and 76 of the Chennai City PoliceAct, 1888. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner hadsubmitted that the impugned proceedings of the first respondent,dated 30.1.2012, does not say that the application of the petitioner,for renewal of the licence, for running the billiards club, had beenrejected, due to the violation of the licence conditions. He hadfurther submitted that the occupation of the premises in question, bythe petitioner, is not in dispute. 10. Section 34 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, requires theobtaining of licence from the Commissioner of Police concerned forusing the place or a building, for public entertainment. However, noconditions had been prescribed, under the provisions of the ChennaiCity Police Act, 1888, and the rules framed thereunder, includingSection 36 of the said Act, for the grant of the licence. He had alsosubmitted that the Commissioner of Police has the power to cancel orsuspend any licence and to impose a penalty, for the breach of theconditions, under Section 76 of the said Act. However, theCommissioner of Police should exercise his powers by taking intoconsideration the object of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, andthe Rules framed thereunder. 11. He had further submitted that the second respondent hadrefused to give the `No Objection Certificate', to the petitioner, asthe second respondent has been trying to evict the petitioner fromthe premises in question. Once an order of interim injunction hadbeen granted, by the civil Court concerned, in I.A.No.2282 of 2011,in O.S.No.2004 of 2011, restraining the second respondent fromdisturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises inquestion, it would not be open to the first respondent to reject the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application of the petitioner for the renewal of the licence. Whenthe petitioner had made huge investments in establishing thebilliards club, in the premises in question, the rejection of theapplication of the petitioner, for the renewal of the licence, by thefirst respondent, without adducing proper reasons to do so, isarbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of thefirst respondent, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 12. Per contra the learned counsels appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that the petitioner had not fulfilled theconditions for the renewal of the licence, prescribed in theapplication form, for the renewal of the licence. When the petitionerhad not produced the relevant documents for the renewal of thelicence, and as the licence had not been renewed, from the year,2007, the first respondent had rightly rejected the application ofthe petitioner, for the renewal of the licence. Further, the firstrespondent has the power to impose such conditions, as may be foundto be necessary, for the renewal of the licence, as per Section 36 ofthe Chennai City Police Act, 1888. As such, the writ petition filedby the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable tobe dismissed.13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents,and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of theconsidered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause orreason to set aside the impugned proceedings of the first respondent,dated 30.1.2012. It is seen that the petitioner had not produced therelevant documents, as required by the first respondent, for therenewal of the licence, for running the billiards club, in thepremises in question, by the petitioner. 14. It is also seen that, as per Section 36 of the Chennai CityPolice Act, 1888, the Commissioner of police can impose suchconditions, as may be found to be necessary, for the granting of therenewal of a licence. Even though it has been stated, in the saidprovision, that such conditions, prescribed by the Commissioner ofPolice, would be subject to the control and the direction of theState Government, nothing has been placed before this Court, by thepetitioner, to show that the State Government had imposed certainrestrictions on the power of the Commissioner of Police. 15. Further, it is noted, from the records available, that thepetitioner had not renewed the licence, from the year, 2007. It isalso clear that the requirements specified in the renewal applicationhad not been complied with, by the petitioner, while submitting hisapplication, for the renewal of the licence. As such, it is clear https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of meritsand therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.CshToThe Commissioner of Police,Coimbatore.1 cc to Mr.V.V.Sairam Advocate, SR No.265661 cc to Mr.H.Rajasekar, Advocate, SR No.270431 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.26848 Order inW.P.No.6022 of 2012SS {CO}TP/23.4.2012.