M/s.Sree Krishna Sweets P. Ltd. v. Udumalpet Muniipality

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.18829 of 2009andM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2009M/s.Sree Krishna Sweets P. Ltd.Represented by its Managing Director,Mr.M.Krishnanhaving its Registered Office atNo.23, Mettupalayam Road,Kavundampalayam,Coimbatore-30... Petitioner Vs.1.Udumalpet Muniipality rep. By its Commissioner, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.2.M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34... RespondentsThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamusto direct the first respondent to remove the lock bolted at thepetitioner's sweet stall at No.120 Palani Road, Udamalpet. For Petitioner : Mr.R.SunilkumarFor Respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas for R1 Mr.R.Ravi for R2ORDERHeard both sides. The petitioner is a private limitedcompany represented by its Managing Director. It is claimed thatthey are selling their sweets and other products in the name of"Krishna Sweets". They have outlets in many places both in Indiaand outside India. In the property at No.120 Palani Road,Udamalpet, which is owned by the first respondent Municipality, thepetitioner is having their sweet stall. The second respondentIndian Oil Corporation Ltd. (for short IOC), had taken the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property on lease from the first respondent during the year 1980for the purpose of running a petrol bunk. 2.The property was leased out by the first respondent tothe second respondent as a vacant site. After taking lease, thesecond respondent had put up required construction for running apetrol bunk as well as for running the sweet stall. It is claimedthat the IOC is entitled to use the premises either by themselvesor through their dealers as per the lease agreement with the firstrespondent. The IOC Limited was modernizing its petrol bunk for thedevelopment of its business and had taken several steps to cater tothe needs of consumers. They are providing various facilities likemedical shop, coffee shop, STD Booth, ATM Centre, departmentalstores and sweet shops etc within the premises of the petrol bunkso that persons who enter to outlet for filling petrol for theirvehicles will also enjoy comprehensive facilities. Catering to theneeds of the public is the wholesome service provided by IOCLimited.3.The IOC limited is running the petrol bunk through itsretail dealer by name M.S.Mani and Co. at No.120, Palani Road,Udamalpet. The petitioner approached the second respondentexpressing their willingness to set up a new sweet stall at theirretail outlet. Accordingly, IOC Limited, by a letter, dated20.4.2005 sought for permission of the Commissioner of the firstrespondent municipality to permit them to add the said facility totheir outlet. The first respondent was convinced about the saidfacility. Therefore, IOC Limited after conducting negotiations,entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 22.4.2005.According to the MOU, the petitioner is entitled to have theirsweet stall in the leasehold premises and an area of 164 sq.ft. wasallotted to them. 4.The petitioner thereafter spent considerable amount ininstalling facilities, including interior work, illuminations,signage, security system etc. They also provided furniture, shelvesfor displaying the sweets and other eatables in an hygienic way.The petitioner had also obtained telephone connection in the saidpremises in their name and have installed refrigerator, computer,weighing scale, etc. The first respondent was fully aware oflocation of the said stall and the MOU signed between thepetitioner and the second respondent. Even thereafter, the firstrespondent was accepting the remittance of license fee paid by thepetitioner excepting for the period from 2006 to 2008 it wasrefused. But even then, they were not asked to vacate the premises. 5.It was stated that on 22.4.2005, a sum of Rs.750/- waspaid towards trade licence fee in respect of the sweet stall. Onthe same day, the fee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Actwas also paid. They were accepted by the municipality. Thepetitioner also remitted the license fee for the periods 2008-2009and 2009-2010. As per MOU, the second respondent was collecting aparticular percentage of amount on the turnover of the business and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it will show that it is like a joint venture business. However, on12.9.2009, the first respondent came to the sweet stall along 20persons with a posse of police man and started removing the stocksof the petitioner in the premises. The stock worth Rs.20000/- wasindiscriminately thrown out and closed the shop and bolted the doorwith their own lock, despite objections by the employees ofpetitioner company. No notice was given to the petitioner or tothe second respondent. The petitioner sent a telegraphic notice onthe same day calling the first respondent to remove the lock andkey. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has comeforward to file the present writ petition, seeking for a directionto remove the lock bolted at the petitioner's sweet stall. 6.Notice was ordered on the writ petition on 14.9.2009.Pending the writ petition, an interim direction was given not toremove the articles from the shop. 7.On notice from this court, the first respondent has fileda counter affidavit, dated 03.10.2009. The stand taken by the firstrespondent was that the municipality has given on lease the landfor a specific purpose of putting a petrol bunk and to vend theirproducts. No sublease was permissible. Notice was issued on19.8.2009 asking them as to why leased property should not be takenback. Time granted in the said notice came to an end on 27.8.2009.Since no reply was received, the sweet stall was closed. Theletters sent by the petitioner were not available with themunicipality. If the second respondent wanted to run any otherbusiness, they should have sought for permission from themunicipality. Only on 19.8.2009, the said sublease was noticed. 8.It was also stated that since they were havingunauthorised sweet stall, the same was removed by the RevenueInspector. The action of the second respondent in subleasing thesaid property was illegal. It was further stated that the leasewith the second respondent has come to an end on 31.3.2007 and norenewal was obtained by the second respondent. The MunicipalCouncil also has passed a resolution No.706, dated 31.8.2009 totake possession of the premises. The land was at the center of theUdumalpet Town very near to the bus stand. The municipalityrequires revenue and has proposed to build a shopping complex. Suchresolution was also passed after issuance of the show cause noticeto the second respondent. 9.It was stated that the second respondent had informedthat they have not entered into any lease agreement with thepetitioner and they are only charging signage fees for displayingthe name board. 10.Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the Municipality alsoproduced a model agreement issued by the municipality, whichprovides that if any condition was violated, the license can berevoked by the municipality under condition No.34. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The highhandedness of the first respondent in taking thelaw into their own hands cannot be appreciated. It must be notedthat it is not as if petrol retail outlets are not having suchallied activities in order to attract customers. If secondrespondent had violated any condition of license, only licence canbe revoked. The first respondent cannot take law on his own and putlock and key on the sweet stall run by the petitioner. Such thebusiness conducted by the petitioner cannot be said to be eitherillegal or unlawful or totally unconnected with the petrol retailoutlet run by the second respondent. So long as the secondrespondent is running the petrol bunk outlet, running the sweetstall by the petitioner in the same bunk cannot be said to beeither illegal or contrary to the terms of conditions of licence.Until such time the second respondent is permitted to run thepetrol bunk, the petitioner is also entitled to carry out his sweetstall in the said bunk. 12.Therefore, the writ petition will stand allowed. Nocosts. The first respondent is directed to remove the lock put upby them on the petitioner's sweet stall at No.120, Palani Road,Udamalpet, within one week from the date of receipt of copy of thisorder. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions standclosed.vvk Sd/- Asst.Registrar/True Copy/ Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Commissioner, Udumalpet Muniipality Udumalpet, Tiruppur District.2.M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34.+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Sunil kumar, Advocate Sr. 68448+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Ravi, Advocate SR.68375W.P.NO.18829 of 2009JRG(CO)EU 17.12.2009