Tvl.Sasi kumar v. The member Secretary & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 3.3.2010CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.3996 of 2010Tvl.Sasi kumar … petitionerVs.1. The member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 82. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai. … Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for therecords in Letter No.K1/1194/2004, dated 12.2.2010 on the file of thefirst respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary againstlaw. For petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan senior Advocate for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For respondents : Mr.I.Paranthaman for R1 Mr.A.Mohamed Ghouse for R2O R D E RThis writ petition has been filed praying for a writ ofCertiorari to call for and quash letter No.K1/1194/2004, dated12.2.2010, issued by the first respondent.2. The petitioner has stated that he is carrying on retailbusiness in flowers, at shop No.20G, Badrian Street, George Town,Chennai. Before the classification and allotment of shops atKoyambedu Bus stand, the wholesale vendors and the retailers werecarrying on business at Badrian Street, in and around the old busstand and in the kotwal Chavadi Market area. After the establishmentof the shops at Koyambedu, all the wholesale dealers, who werecarrying on business in flowers, at the flower bazaar and at Badrian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Street, had shifted their place of business to Koyambedu, as they hadbeen allotted the shops to carry on their business. The shops atKoyambedu had been provided with all the necessary facilities,including the necessary space for storage of flowers. 3. It has been further stated that even though no wholesalebusiness was being carried on at Badrian Street, a group of persons,claiming to be wholesale dealers, carrying on their business atKoyambedu flower market, had represented to the respondents allegingthat certain retailers were carrying on wholesale business in flowersat Badrian Street. Based on such representation, the respondents hadissued notices to the petitioner and to the Association of retailvendors, in which the petitioner is a member. 4. It has also been stated that the notices issued by therespondents had been challenged before this Court, in W.P.Nos.29809of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. This Court had passed an order directingthe respondents to give notice to the petitioner and after holding anenquiry, the respondents could determine the nature of the businessbeing carried on by the various flowers vendors and to decide as towhether they were carrying on wholesale or retail business inflowers. Though the first respondent had issued the call letter,calling upon the retailers to attend a meeting, along with therelevant records, it was only a public hearing. Thereafter, based onthe report filed by the respondents, the impugned letter, dated12.2.2010, had been issued, without following the directions issuedby this Court. By the impugned letter, the petitioner had been askedto stop his wholesale business in flowers, from 1.3.2010. By the saidletter a warning had also been issued that if the petitioner does notstop his business, as directed by the impugned letter, his weighingscales and other equipments, including the vehicles used fortransportation of flowers, would be seized. In such circumstances,the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before thisCourt, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The main contention of Mr.A.Thiayagarajan, the learned seniorcounsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the respondents do nothave any legal authority to come to a conclusion that all the 130members of the petitioner Association are carrying on wholesalebusiness, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the individualmembers. It has not been shown, by way of records, as to how therespondents had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is awholesale vendor in flowers. In spite of the fact that this Court, byits order, dated 27.11.2009, made in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909of 2009, had issued directions to the respondents to take appropriateaction, as per law, after issuing notices to the Chennai RetailFlower Merchants' Welfare Association and to its members, in order togive them an opportunity of hearing, the respondents had not issuedsuch a notice to the petitioner before he was termed as a wholesaledealer in flowers. Even if the respondents could claim that theirdecisions were based on reports filed by its officials, who had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assigned the responsibility of verifying as to whether the members ofthe Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association are carryingon retail or wholesale business in flowers, the respondents cannotcome to any definite conclusion without giving an opportunity ofhearing to the individual members of the Chennai Retail FlowerMerchants' Welfare Association. 6. The learned counsel had also stated that the action of thefirst respondent in issuing the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, isnot only arbitrary, but also mala fide in nature. The firstrespondent is taking action against the petitioner and the othermembers of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Associationonly based on certain erroneous representations made by some personsclaiming to be wholesale vendors in flowers, doing their business inthe Koyambedu market area. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the respondents should clearly specify as to who areall the members of the Association doing wholesale business inflowers. After the necessary particulars had been given to therespondents by the individual members of the Association, no reporthad been given by the respondents to the members before issuing theimpugned letter, dated 12.2.2010. No records had been shown by therespondents to substantiate their claims that show cause notices hadbeen given to the petitioner and to the other members of theAssociation. He had also stated that the respondents had not followedthe procedures established by the provisions of the Tamil NaduSpecified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents had submitted that the respondents are strictly followingthe directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions, inW.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009, dated 27.11.2009. Therespondents had issued the necessary notices to the petitioner and tothe other members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' WelfareAssociation asking them to show, by way of records, as to whetherthey were carrying on retail or wholesale business in flowers, atBadrian Street, George Town, Chennai. After giving a reasonableopportunity of hearing, the impugned notice, dated 12.2.2010, hadbeen issued by the first respondent asking the petitioner and theothers to stop their whole sale business in flowers. 9. The learned counsel had also submitted that it is for thepetitioner to substantiate his claim, by way of documentary evidence,that he is not carrying on whole sale business in flowers. However,if it is found by the respondents that the petitioner is carrying onwholesale business in flowers, he would be evicted from his place ofbusiness and further action would be initiated, as per the provisionsof the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation ofLocation) Act, 1996. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted that the first respondent had issued the impugnedletter, dated 12.2.2010, only in accordance with the directionsissued by this Court, in its order, dated 27.11.2009, made inW.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. The necessary procedures hadbeen followed by the respondents before the impugned letter, dated12.2.2010, had been issued to the petitioner. The Chennai RetailFlower Merchants' Welfare Association, as well as all the individualmembers of the said Association, including the petitioner, had beengiven sufficient opportunity of hearing before the communication,dated 12.2.2010, had been issued by the first respondent. Further,the said communication had been issued only after sufficientenquiries had been made and it is based on a detailed report filed bycertain responsible officers representing the respondents. The order,dated 27.11.2009, passed by this Court, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and12909 of 2009, does not contemplate a second show cause notice beforethe respondents come to their conclusions, in respect of the natureof the business being carried on by the members of the Chennai RetailFlower Merchants' Welfare Association, including the petitionerherein. 11. The learned counsel had also submitted that the notices hadbeen issued to the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' WelfareAssociation and to all its members calling them to attend a meeting,pursuant to the order, dated 27.11.2009, issued by this Court, inW.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. Thereafter, by a letter,singed, on 11.1.2010, an intimation had been sent to the President ofthe Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association, intimatingthat a meeting would be held, on 18.1.2010, in continuation of theenquiry held, on 31.12.2009. It had also been requested that all therelevant particulars, relating to the members of the Association,should be submitted in the prescribed format. A cheque list/formatfor assessing the wholesale trade in flower business at BadrianStreet, George Town, Chennai, had also been distributed stating thatthe details required therein should be furnished at the time of theenquiry. The cheque list/format had contained the various columnsrequiring information regarding the name of the trader, door number,shop number and name, shop area, number of years in the business inthe area, type of flower business (all/jasmine/rose/etc), quantum ofproduct handled in kilograms, source of purchase/KWMC/outside(producer), details of storage space/containers with capacity inkilograms, duration of business hours, type of product sold such asMalai/Kathambam, Raw flower or both, quantum of sales in feet/mulamor in kilograms, trade license/ST/etc., Association Membershipdetails and remarks, whole sale/retail business. 12. Thereafter, letters had been addressed by the MemberSecretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, to theCommissioner, Corporation of Chennai and to the Commissioner ofPolice, Chennai, intimating the details regarding the meeting, whichwas to be held, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated27.11.2009, made in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. After https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ receiving the necessary particulars, a survey had been done, both bythe Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, as well as theCorporation of Chennai, based on which it was found that thepetitioner and the other members of the Chennai Retail FlowerMerchants' Welfare Association were carrying on wholesale business inflowers. Therefore, the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, had beenissued by the first respondent, asking them to stop their business inwholesale vending of flowers, failing which they have been warnedthat their weighing scales and other such tools used by the traders,as well as the vehicles transporting the flowers, would beconfiscated. In such circumstances, the present writ petition filedby the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable tobe dismissed. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the firstrespondent/Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had placedbefore this Court a decision of the Division Bench of this Court,dated 30.4.2010, (K.R.RAMASWAMY @ TRAFFIC RAMASWAMY AND ANOTHER Vs.STATE REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-600009) wherein certain directions had been issued, with regard to theshifting of iron and steel market from George Town area to Sathangaduto justify the action taken by the respondents, in respect of retailvendors in flowers. 14. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitionerand on considering the contentions raised by the learned counselsappearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the originalrecords produced before this Court, by the respondents, it is clearthat the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association and itsmembers, including the petitioner, had been given sufficientopportunity of representing their cases, as per the directions issuedby this Court, on 27.11.2009, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of2009. The impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, has been issued by thefirst respondent, based on the enquiry held on various dates and itis based on the particulars submitted by the individuals and on thereports submitted by the authorized officers of the respondents. Insuch circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had notbeen given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before theimpugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued by the firstrespondent. The concept of principles of natural justice cannot bestrictly applied as a straightjacket formula, in all circumstancesand in all situations. It can neither be like an unruly horse, norlike a run-away train, sans control or direction. It would applydifferently to different situations, as found to be necessary. 15. Further, it cannot be said that the letter, dated 12.2.2010,issued by the first respondent is arbitrary and invalid, as it hasbeen issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It isnoted that the respondents had, scrupulously, followed the directionsissued by this Court, by its order, dated 27.11.2009, inW.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. While so, it cannot beclaimed that the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated12.2.2010, is contrary to the directions issued by this Court.Endless enquiries have not been contemplated in the order passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court, on 27.11.2009. When most of the wholesale vendors inflowers had shifted from the George Town Area, Chennai to theKoyambedu Market Area, there cannot be any acceptable reason for therespondents to permit the petitioner and other such wholesale vendorsin flowers to carry on their trade at Badrian Street, George Town,Chennai, to the detriment of the other wholesale vendors, who hadshifted their business to the Koyambedu Market Area. 16. It is also clear that the provisions of the Tamil NaduSpecified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996,will not be applicable to the petitioner, unless he is carrying on‘wholesale trade’, as defined under clause 14 of Section 2 of thesaid Act. 17. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of theconsidered view that the present writ petition is devoid of meritsand therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed.No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarlanTo1. The member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 82. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai.1 cc To Mr.I.Paranthaman, Advocate, SR.144391 cc To Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, SR.14357Writ Petition No.3996 of 2010sv(co)pmk.4.3.2010