E. Manoharan v. Chief Executive Officer, Market Executive Committee, Koyambedu Whole-sale Market Complex, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 10.07.2012Coram THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.4281 of 2012 andM.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012E. Manoharan ... Petitioner-vs-1.Chief Executive Officer,Market Executive Committee,Koyambedu Whole-sale Market Complex,Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092.2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Rep.by its Executive Engineer,Koyambedu Distribution Circle,Chennai 600 092.3.S.Arumugam4.V.P.Raju5.M.Srihari6.C.Manimaran ... RespondentsPrayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling forthe impugned sealing order in Letter No.MEC/A2/1783/2012, dated20.02.2012 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.NeelakandanFor R1: Mr. R. VelmuruganFor R2: Mr.P.GunarajFor R3: Mr.V.Selvaraj, For Mr.D.PrabhuMukunth ArunkumarFor R4 & R5: Mr.A.Venkateshkumar***** https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RThe petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, issued vide LetterNo.MEC/A2/1783/2012, dated 20.02.2012, passed by the firstrespondent, directing sealing of his shop, has invoked theextraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India.2.The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are:i)that Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) hasconstructed Koyambedu whole sale market complex, Koyambedu fordealing with perishable goods and also developed the complex forflower, fruits and vegetable market.ii)that the market is regulated by the Tamil Nadu SpecifiedCommodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996 (hereinafterreferred to as the 'Act').iii)that the CMDA allotted these shops in the vegetable market towhole sale traders on hire purchase agreement.iv)that the shop originally known as A5 type shop, New No.G-128measuring 203.15 sq.ft at Periyar Vegetable Market at KoyambeduWhole-Sale Market Complex, was allotted to Thiru Arumugam/respondentNo.3, v)that Thiru Arumugam executed an agreement for sale dated 03.02.1989in favour of respondent no.4 along with an indemnity bond andaffidavit dated 03.02.1989 in favour of respondent no.4 as alsoMadras Metropolitan Development Authority. This fact is disputed bythe respondent No.3 and a civil suit regarding dispute of title ispending in the Civil Court.vi)that on 23.01.1992, Thiru S.Arumugam executed a general power ofattorney in favour of respondent No.4, and gave him full authorityto deal with the shop bearing No.G-128.vii)that the respondent no.4 executed a lease agreement with thepetitioner for running the business of whole sale onion businessunder the name and style of Raj Tradersviii)that the petitioner is paying the lease rent to the respondentNo.4 regularly and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board also hasinstalled electricity connection No.176-049-795 in the name of thethird respondent. This connection has been disconnected on theinstruction of respondent No.1. ix)that on 29.10.2011, the respondent no.4 informed the petitioner,that all the installments under the hire purchase agreement stood https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ paid to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and a saledeed also was executed in favour of the respondent no.3. Therefore,it is the admitted case of the parties, that as on date, respondentno.3, is the registered owner. This fact is disputed by respondentno.6, who claims to be registered owner in pursuance to theregistered sale deed dated 31.10.2011, executed by respondent no.3in favour of respondent no.6. This dispute is also pending in theCivil Court.3.In view of pendency of civil suit with regard to the titleof property, the question regarding title cannot be adjudicated inexercise of writ jurisdiction. It shall be open to the parties to gettheir dispute regarding title and right of possession adjudicated inthe Civil Court, without any reference to the observation made inthis judgment.4.The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondentNo.1, in violation of the provisions of the Act, stopped the businessof the petitioner by sealing the shop.5.It is also submitted, that after illegally sealing theshop, now steps are being taken to hand over the possession to therespondents, without any authority of law.6.The action of the respondent in sealing the petitioner'sshop is challenged, being arbitrary and being violative of theprovisions of the Act, therefore, not sustainable in law.7.The writ petition is contested by the respondents. Thethird respondent has disputed the transfer of title in favour of thefourth respondent as also his right to lease out the property to thepetitioner. 8.It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent no.3,that in the civil suit, regarding title is pending, in which an orderof status quo has been ordered, therefore, this writ petition, asframed, is not competent.9.This contention cannot be gone into, as this Court is notdeciding the dispute regarding title or with regard to the rights ofparties under the sale deed or settlement deed, or as to who isentitled to possession. The parties are to maintain status quo asordered.10.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6contends, that Thiru C.Manimaran is the registered owner of theproperty, who has been granted license to run the business in theshop, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim possession of the shopin dispute in absence of any title to the property. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.This question again cannot be gone into in this writpetition, as it is for the respondent no.6 to take possession of theproperty from petitioner in accordance with law, nor it is within thejurisdiction of respondent no.1 to decide about the title or withregard to possession. 12.It is not in dispute, that the possession of the shop wastaken from petitioner, when it was sealed by respondent no.1.13.The respondent no.1 contested the writ petition, on theground that the writ, as framed, is not maintainable, as thepetitioner cannot claim the right to run the business in the marketin violation of the provisions of the Act.14.In support of this contention, learned counsel forrespondent no.1 referred to Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, which readas under:"20. Registration of wholesale traders:- The ChiefAdministrative Officer of every market committee shallmaintain a register, for every specified commodity forregistering the wholesale traders, in such form and in suchmanner as may be prescribed.(2) As soon as may be, after any area is declared to bea market area for any specified commodity, the ChiefAdministrative Officer shall issue a notice in such form andpublish it in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting allthe wholesale traders actively engaged in the wholesaletrade of such specified commodity in the local areaimmediately before the date of publication of thenotification under sub-section (1) of section 4.(3) Every person other than the persons referred to insub-section (2) intending to carry on the wholesale trade ofsuch specified commodity in any market area shall also applyto the Chief Administrative Officer for registering his namewith the market committee.(4) The application for such registration shall be madein such form and shall be accompanied by such fees anddocuments as may be prescribed.(5) The Chief Administrative Officer shall consider allapplications received by him and if he is satisfied onmaking such further inquiry, if any, as he may deem fit thatn applicant was actively engaged, in or intending to carryon the wholesale trade, he shall include his name in theregister maintained by him under sub-section (1) and informthe applicant accordingly. Even such registered wholesale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trade shall be eligible to get a licence as provided insection 21.(6) If the Chief Administrative Officer refuses toregister the name of the person who has applied for thesame, he shall communicate his decision in writing withreasons therefor to such person;Provided that no order under this sub-section shall bepassed unless the person concerned is given a reasonableopportunity of being heard.(7) If the Chief Administrative Officer, on applicationmake to him or information received by him or on his ownmotion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he deems fit,that any entry in the register is erroneous or defective inany particular or should be omitted on the ground that theperson concerned has ceased to carry on the wholesale tradein such specified commodity, he may, after giving theaffected person a reasonable opportunity of being heard,amend or omit the entry in the register.(8) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the ChiefAdministrative Officer in regard to the refusal ofregistration or amendment or omission of any entry of hisname in the register, may make an appeal in writing to thelocal authority within such period as may be prescribed.(9) The decision of the Chief Administrative Officer,in regard to such registration, and where an appeal is madeagainst such decision, the decision of the local authority,shall be final.21.Wholesale trading in specified commodity in marketarea to be regulated by licence:- (1) On and after the datespecified by the local authority, by notification (hereafterin this section referred to as the notified date), no personshall, within a market area:-(a) set up, establish or use, or continue or allow tobe continued, any place for the wholesale trade of anyspecified commodity; or(b) operate as weighman, measurer, trader, warehousemanor in any other capacity in relation to the wholesaletrading of any specified commodity; or(c) carry on any wholesale trade of any specifiedcommodity in any place in the market area other than in themarket or special market, as the case may be, except under,and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence granted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to him in that behalf by the market committee under thisAct:Provided that:(i) all others granting, renewing, refusing to grant orrefusing to renew, cancelling or suspending any licenceshall be in writing and no order refusing to grant or renewor cancelling or suspending a licence shall be made withoutgiving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity ofstating his case;(ii)the reasons for any such refusal, cancellation orsuspension of a licence shall be recorded in writing;(iii)the market committee shall not refuse to grant aninitial licence to any registered wholesale trader.(2) Nothing contained in sub-section(1) shall apply toa Warehousing Corporation established or maintained by theState or Central Government or a warehouseman licensed underthe Tamil Nadu Warehouses Act, 1951 (Tamil Nadu Act XV of1951) in respect of storage, weighment or measurement of anyspecified commodity accepted for warehousing.(3) A licence under sub-section (1) may be refused to aperson:-(a) whose licence was cancelled, and a period of threeyears has not elapsed since the date of the cancellation; or(b) who has been convicted of an offence where suchoffence relates to his business or his integrity as a man ofbusiness; or(c)in regard to whom the market committee is satisfied,after such enquiry as it considers adequate, that he is abenamidar for, or a partner with, any other person to whom alicence may be refused under clause (a) or clause(b).(4) If a market committee is satisfied, either on areference made to it in this behalf, or otherwise, that-(a)a licence granted under sub-section (1) has beenobtained by misrepresentation or fraud, or(b)the holder of a licence has contravened, or failedto comply with, any of the provisions of this Act or therules or by-laws made under this Act, the market committee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may, subject to such rules as ay be made in this behalf,cancel or suspend the licence, after giving the holder ofthe licence a reasonable opportunity of showing causeagainst such cancellation or suspension.(5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the marketcommittee-(a) refusing to grant, or(b) cancelling or suspending, a licence may, withinsuch time as may be prescribed, appeal to the localauthority and the local authority may make such order in thecase as it may think fit.(6) A license granted under sub-section (1) shall bevalid for a period of three years and may be renewed, fromtime to time, and the provisions of this Act shall, so faras may be, apply in relation to the renewal of a licence asthey apply in relation to the grant of licence.(7) Every person to whom a licence is granted undersub-section(1) shall comply with the provisions of this Act,the rules and by-laws made under this Act and the conditionsspecified in the licence.(8) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any lawfor the time being in force, no local authority, includingthe (Chennai City Municipal Corporation constituted underthe Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (Tamil NaduAct IV of 1919) having jurisdiction over the market area,shall, on and after the notified date, establish, authoriseor continue, or allow to be established, authorised orcontinued, any place in the local area including the marketarea as a market or a place to carry on the wholesale tradein respect of any specified commodity and any permission orlicence already granted by such local authority shall standcancelled on the notified date.(b) Upon such cancellation of any permission orlicence, if the holder of such permission or licence refusesto discontinue his wholesale trade in respect of anyspecified commodity in the place referred to in clause(a),the market committee may, by notice in writing, direct suchperson, within a period of one month or such further periodas may be specified therein, to stop carrying on thewholesale trade in such place.(c)If any direction given under clause (b) is notcomplied with, within the time specified in the notice, themarket committee may, without prejudice to any penalty that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be imposed for any contravention of the provisions ofthis section, have such direction carried into effect at itscost and have the amount thereof recovered from thedefaulter in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.(d) Upon such cancellation of any permission orlicence, the holder of such permission or licence shall notbe entitled to claim and receive any compensation, but shallbe entitled to claim and receive such amount towards refundof the fees paid by hi, as is proportional to the unexpiredperiod of such permission or licence."15.The reading of Sections 20 and 21 shows, that learnedcounsel is right in contending, that the petitioner does not have anyright to run the business in the premises in dispute, as admittedlyhe does not have valid licence under the Act to run the business. Thecontention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that thepetitioner has applied for licence also cannot entitle him to run thebusiness, till the licence is granted.16.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenged theaction of the respondents in stopping the business of petitioner, onthe ground that it was in violation of principle of natural justice,as no notice was issued to petitioner before stopping the businessrun by the petitioner. This contention cannot be accepted. Thepetitioner cannot seek the relief in nature of Mandamus, to carry onthe business against the provisions of law. It is not disputed thatin absence of valid licence, nobody can run the business in themarket, therefore, the petitioner has no right to run any business.The setting aside of order would amount to allowing the petitioner torun business without valid license.17.However, there is force in the contention raised by thelearned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that it was not open tothe respondent no.1 to seal the shop. As there is no provision underthe Act, which authorizes respondent no.1 to seal the premises forviolation of the provisions of the Act. The respondent no.1 can onlystop the business being run in violation of the provisions of theAct, and take other steps under Act, for violating the provisions,but this does not include sealing of shop, as it can only be done bythe Civil Court. The prayer of petitioner for prohibiting therespondent from interfering with the running of business bypetitioner is declined, it shall be open to the respondent no.1 tostop the business of petitioner in absence of licence.18.However, the limited prayer of petitioner for removal ofseal is accepted, and a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued,directing the respondent no.1 to remove the seal and hand over thepossession of the shop to the petitioner from whom the possession wastaken. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.It is made clear that it shall be open to the Civil Courtto decide the dispute regarding the title of property and alsodetermine the rights of the parties to have possession of the shop,without any reference to the order of this Court.20.At the sake of repetition, it is ordered, that respondentno.1 shall be entitled to prohibit the petitioner from running thebusiness in the premises in absence of valid license.21.No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.Sd/-Assistant Registrar/TRUE COPY/Sub Assistant Registrarsmi/arTo1.Chief Executive Officer,Market Executive Committee,Koyambedu Whole-sale Market Complex,Koyambedu, Chennai 600 092.2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,Rep.by its Executive Engineer,Koyambedu Distribution Circle,Chennai 600 092.+1CC to Mr.R.Neelakandan, Advocate for Petitioner SR.40361+1CC to Mr.M.Velmurugan, Advocate for R1 SR.40278+1CC to Mr.P.Gunaraj, Advocate fro R2 SR.40114+2CCs to Mr.D.PrabhuMukunth Arunkumar, Advocate for R3 SR.40297 & 40298W.P.No.4281 of 2012KJ(CO)KSA(20/07/2012)