← Library
Madras High CourtWP/26628/2021disposed of

R.A.Bags, Proprietor v. The Commissioner

2021-12-14Honourable Mr Justice R. Suresh Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.NO.26628 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NOS.28075 AND 28076 OF 2021 R.A.Bags Propreitor, Rakkappan Karthik, No.3/1, 3rd Cross Lane, Dr.B.Narasimhan Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

... Petitioner -vs1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building Campus, Chennai - 600 003.

2. District Revenue Officer/Zonal Officer IX, Greater Chennai Corporation, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the lock and seal notice issued vide proceedings No.k/m/9tJ/eh/fh/vz;/Mh;

3/11171/2021 dated 03.12.2021 along with the notice under Section 379(A)(1) dated 03.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the lock and seal of my premises done by him on 06.12.2021.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sasikumaran For Respondents : Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing counsel

ORDER

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the lock and seal notice issued vide proceedings No.k/m/9tJ/eh/fh/vz;/Mh; 3/11171/2021 dated 03.12.2021 along with the notice under Section 379(A)(1) dated 03.12.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to remove the lock and seal of petitioner's premises done by him on 06.12.2021.

2. The petitioner is running a family business, where wholesale bags are being stitched in the premises, where only family members are involving. Therefore, the petitioner had not taken any trade license from the respondent Municipal Corporation to run the said business. However, when some complaints had been received by the respondent Corporation that, the said business is being run by the petitioner without the trade license from the respondent Corporation, the respondent Corporation on 11.10.2021 had issued a demand letter that, unless the petitioner takes a trade license under the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation 1919 Act (in short hereinafter 'the Act'), further action would be taken against the petitioner to close the business.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner, in response to the said demand letter of the respondent Corporation, dated 11.10.2021, has made an application to get the trade license on 27.10.2021 and along with the same, necessary fee for a sum of Rs.5,000/- was also made by the petitioner by way of Demand Draft for processing the trade license application and also for granting license to the petitioner business. When that being so, all of a sudden, the impugned communication dated 03.12.2021 has been issued, under which provision under Section 379(A)(i) of the Act has been invoked by the respondent Corporation stating that, since the petitioner is running the business without the trade license, within 24 hrs, the business shall be closed and all the business materials available in the business premises shall be evacuated. Aggrieved by the said order dated 03.12.2021, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition.

4. Heard Mr.D.Sasikumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, who, having reiterated the aforestated, would submit that, when the petitioner has already responded to the demand letter of the respondent dated 11.10.2021, by making an application on 27.10.2021 along with necessary fees to take the trade license, without processing the same and without granting the trade license to the petitioner, by invoking Section 379(A) (i) of the Act the respondent Corporation has passed the

impugned order and therefore, it is untenable and unjustifiable. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court against the impugned order.

5. Heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents, who would submit that, since the petitioner was running a trade or business without the trade license taken in this regard, which is a mandatory one, without which, if any such business is run by the petitioner, the same shall either be sought regularisation by taking license by the petitioner or it shall be closed as the consequences of such business being run by anyone without acquiring a license and in the present case, when the business is being run by the petitioner without any valid license, such business can be closed by invoking Section 379 (A)

(1) of the Act, that has been now done by the respondent Corporation by issuing the impugned notice. Therefore, it is fully justifiable and sustainable one. Accordingly, learned Standing counsel would contend that, no interference is required from this Court against the impugned communication.

6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. No doubt, the petitioner hitherto was running the trade or business without any license and once a notice has been issued in this regard by the respondent, admittedly on 11.10.2021, the petitioner had made an application on 27.10.2021 along with necessary fee and a proof to make such application has been filed before this Court along with a copy of Demand Draft. When an application has already been filed on 27.10.2021, the respondent Corporation could have processed the same and if the petitioner is eligible to get the license as per the parameters required to be fulfilled in this regard, the said application could have been disposed of by either granting the license or otherwise. Therefore, in this regard, without disposing such application already issued, pursuant to the application made in this regard by the petitioner, the Corporation, in the considered opinion of this Court, ought not to have invoked Section 379 (A)(1) of the Act.

8. No doubt Section 379(A)(1) is the provision, which enables the Corporation to take action as a consequence of failure to obtain license etc., or of breach of the same. In the present case, atleast after making an application on 27.10.2021, it cannot be stated that, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain the license.

9. Hence in the aforestated circumstances, this Court feels that, the said application dated 27.10.2021 can very well be processed by the respondent Corporation at the earliest and on merits, the same shall be decided. Till such time, the business run by the petitioner can be permitted to run and once any decision adversely taken by the respondent Corporation on the application made by the petitioner depending upon the outcome, the further action or consequential action under Section 379(A)

(1) can very well be taken by the respondent Corporation. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

"(i) That the application submitted by the petitioner dated 27.10.2021, shall be immediately processed by the respondent Corporation and in this regard if any further input is required from the petitioner, a notice to that effect also be given and if a spot inspection is required, that also can be undertaken by the respondent Corporation and after having undertaken all these exercise, the application shall be decided on merits and final order shall be passed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(ii) Till such disposal of the application, the present running of the petitioner's business need not be interfered with by the respondent Corporation; (iii) It is made clear that, ultimately if the application of the petitioner is decided in favour of the petitioner, there could be no impediment for the petitioner to run the business. However, if it is decided against the petitioner on merits pursuant to the outcome of such decision to be made in this regard by the respondent, it is open to the respondent Corporation to pursue further action in response to the or in pursuance to the impugned communication dated 03.12.2021. Till such time, the impugned communication shall be kept in abeyance ; and (iv) In view of the above, there shall be a direction also to the respondent Corporation to de-seal the premises, which has already been sealed, pursuant to the impugned notice and such action shall be taken immediately allowing the petitioner to run the business.

10. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rap/RR To

1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building Campus, Chennai - 600 003.

2. District Revenue Officer/Zonal Officer IX, Greater Chennai Corporation, Lake Area, 4th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.

+1cc to Mr.D.Saikumaran, Advocate, S.R.No.66437 +1cc to M/s.P.T.Ramadevi, Advocate, S.R.No.66524 W.P.No.26628 of 2021 SPD(CO) RLP(11/02/2022)