Don Thomas Fernandez, v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.04.2016 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Writ Petition No.11788 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.10171 of 2016 Don Thomas Fernandez
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai.
The Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai.
The Zonal Officer, Zone XV, Corporation of Chennai, 120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.
4.
Shiraz Art Care Tangy Resort, 27, Beach Road, Neelangari, Chennai.
...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the fourth respondent from running a cafe/restaurant, without a license under Section 279 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. For Petitioner : Mr.Govind Chandrasekhar For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.V.Selvakumar Standing Counsel Respondent 4 : No appearance
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, seeking for a direction upon the respondent/Corporation of Chennai, to forbear the fourth respondent from running a Restaurant, without securing proper licence under Section 279 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent/Corporation. Though notice was served on the fourth respondent, and their name was printed in the causelist, none appears on their behalf. The petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, dated 25.02.2015, requesting for an information as to whether the fourth respondent possesses any valid licence to run the Restaurant. In response to the petitioner's query, the Public Information Officer sent a reply, dated 18.03.2016, stating that no trade licence has been issued to the fourth respondent, and the fourth respondent has not submitted any application for trade licence, and no Goverment Official has inspected the Hotel, and notice under Section 279 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, has been issued. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though notice under Section 279 of the Act had been issued, till date, the fourth respondent is continuing to operate the Restaurant, without valid licence. 4.
In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the third respondent to conduct an inspection of the premises of the fourth respondent, and ascertain facts, and if the fourth respondent is not in possession of valid licence, then, the third respondent is directed to take action in accordance with the provisions of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, after notice to the fourth respondent and afford them an opportunity of hearing. The above direction be complied with by the third respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai.
The Revenue Officer, Revenue Department, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai.
The Zonal Officer, Zone XV, Corporation of Chennai, 120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.
+1cc to Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, Advocate Sr.27761 Writ Petition No.11788 of 2016 nr[co] srg 17/05/2016