Smt. Umrao Devi Bantia, v. Union Of India, Rep. By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Defence,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.43007 OF 2016 ORDER:

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to set aside notice dated 06.12.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent by declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary, and against the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 2006. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order issued by the respondent invoking the provision under Section 278 of Cantonment Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act') in view of non-obtaining the licenses under Section 277 of the Act, is not applicable to the shops/ premises of the petitioners which do not come within the purview of Section 277 of the Act.

The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submitted that as per the provisions of the Act, in respect of every trade or establishments within the jurisdiction of the respondent, the person should obtain license from the respondent. Even though show-cause notices are issued, the petitioners have not replied and the contention of the petitioners that their shops/ premises are closed without prior intimation or without serving any notice to the petitioners is not correct.

This Court heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.

Without expressing any opinion regarding the applicability of provisions of Section 277 and 288 of the Act, considering the stand taken by the petitioners that no show-cause notice is issued to them, this

Court is of the view that the petitioners can be given one more chance of being heard.

Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are directed to prefer an application for trade license or make a representation to the 2nd respondent or to give a reply to the show-cause notice, if already served to them, on or before 19.12.2016. On such application/ representation or explanation filed by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is directed to take appropriate action and pass orders in accordance with law on or before 20.01.2017. Till such time, the petitioners shall be permitted to run their respective businesses/ establishments.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________ RAJA ELANGO, J December 09, 2016.

KTL

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not rescheduling the petitioner's examination and not allowing the petitioner to participate in NEET-PG Examination-2017, as was done in cases of centres in Chennai, Coimabtore and Trichy, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, declare that the petitioner is entitled to appear for the examination which are scheduled and rescheduled upto 13th December 2016.

It is the case of the petitioner that she could not able to attend the brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been adjudicated by this Court in a batch of writ petitions viz., W.P.No.19046 of 2014 and batch, vide common order, dated 31.10.2016, and this matter is squarely covered by the said common order.

Recording the above submission, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the common order, dated 31.10.2016, in W.P.No.19046 of 2014 and batch. It is made clear that if the petitioner has not made any application before the authorities concerned, he is at liberty to file an application informing the authorities as to the ticket rates, which he intend to collect in respect of all classes till adjudication of the issues in question by the respective committee. Further, the petitioner is directed to pay the taxes proportionate to the proposed rate of the tickets.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________ RAJA ELANGO, J December 07, 2016.

KTL