R. Muthu Raj v. Andaman And Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Limited (Aniidco) And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/340/2022 R. Muthu Raj ... Petitioner Vs.

Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation Limited (ANIIDCO) and others ... Respondents Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu AGarwal ... for the Administration Mr. K. Vijay Kumar ... for the respondent no.5 August 26, 2022 [SR] Item No.4 The petitioner carries on the business of a restaurant and canteen at Ross Island (now named Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Island) at Port Blair. The petitioner seeks a direction on the respondent authorities, particularly the first respondent, to permit the petitioner to carry on the aforesaid business till 31st March, 2024.

The petitioner grounds the relief on a communication dated 11th April, 2021 from the Lieutenant Commander, Officer Incharge of Ross Island to the Designated Officer, South Andaman District on the subject of issue of food license. The letter states that the petitioner has been permitted by the Lieutenant Commander/Commanding Officer of Ross Island to run the restaurant with effect from 1st April, 2022 - 31st March 2024 as an essential facility for the welfare of visiting tourists.

The Lieutenant Commander accordingly requested the Designated Officer to issue the food license to the petitioner in the name of the restaurant in the concerned island for the period mentioned in the said letter namely from 1st April 2022 - 31st March 2024.

The pleadings in the writ petition underscore the apprehension expressed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that on 23rd July, 2022, the officials of the respondent no.5, namely the Commanding Officer, INS Jarawa, Andaman Nicobar Command, Headquarter started visiting the said island and the petitioner subsequently came to know that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration has taken over the said island. The petitioner further states that the respondent no.5 reassure the petitioner thereafter that the petitioner has been permitted to carry on the restaurant business up to 31st April, 2024 on payment of rent. In the first week of August 2022, employees of the respondent no.

1, namely ANIIDCO visited the petitioner's restaurant to inform the petitioner that the restaurant is being taken over by ANIIDCO but that the petitioner will retain the possession of the said restaurant. On 18th August, 2022, an officer of the ANIIDCO visited the restaurant and asked the petitioner to vacate the said restaurant within a week. On 20th August 2022, the officicals of the respondent no.5 asked the petitioner to vacate the said restaurant within a week. On 20th August, 2022, the officials of the respondent no.5 asked the petitioner to deposit the rent upto 25th July 2022 with the respondent no.5.

These are the specific averments in the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4/Administration submits that the lease of the concerned area for running a restaurant expired on 30th April, 2020. Counsel submits that issue of a food license does not mean that the lease has been renewed till date. Counsel further states that the apprehension of the petitioner may be unfounded since the writ petition does not disclose any documents to substantiate the allegations made therein.

Learned counsel representing the respondent no.5 being the Commanding Officer relies on a letter dated 30th December 2021 from the petitioner to the Commanding Officer by which the petitioner requested the latter to issue a No Objection Certificate for 2021-2022 in favour of the petitioner and the restaurant in the Island to enable the petitioner to produce the same before the Food Commissioner to issue of food safety certificate.

Although the apprehension of the petitioner of being ousted from the restaurant and his place of business in Ross Island is a matter of pleadings before the Court, the averments cannot be ignored only for this reason. The statements have been made on oath and the Administration does not contradict these statements.

The documents annexed to the writ petition are of some significance as the documents show that the petitioner has been issued a food license specifically for the restaurant in Ross Island from 1st April, 2020 to 31st March, 2024 for the

welfare of tourists. The bank statements of the petitioner also show that the petitioner has deposited rent for the restaurant until 10.6.2022 of an amount of Rs.31,605/- and a further Rs.1500/- on 1.7.2022. Although counsel appearing for the Administration relies on a receipt voucher showing that rental charges for the restaurant were deposited till December 2021, the Bank statements from 1.4.2022 - 31.7.22 show otherwise. The petitioner has also admittedly being running the restaurant in the island since 2019 and has expended substantial amounts for running and maintenance of the restaurant save and except the intervening period of the pandemic.

The letter produced by the respondent no.5 does not merit any weightage since respondent no.5 had the option at the material point of time of refusing to issue a No Objection Certificate as requested by the petitioner.

It is settled law that even a trespasser cannot be removed without due process. The change of guard in the concerned island from the Commanding Officer to ANIIDCO cannot be a ground to interfere with the petitioner's constitutional right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The food license issued from 1.4.2022 - 31.3.2024 has to be given due weightage since the concerned Commanding Officer communicated for the same to the Designated Officer of the South Andaman District. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the protection prayed for.

However, if it is found that the petitioner does not continue to enjoy any statutory right to run the restaurant from the concerned island, the authorities shall be at liberty of taking appropriate action in that regard. The authorities shall also have the liberty of exercising any other rights as the alleged owner of the Island provided the exercise is in accordance with law.

The business of the petitioner is running the restaurant in Ross Island shall continue in the meantime and not be disturbed or interfered with by the authorities in any manner whatsoever until a fortnight after the petitioner approaches a competent Court of law against a formal notice issued by the authorities under the relevant statute for eviction, if any. WPA/340/2022 is disposed of in terms of the above. Since affidavits have not been called for the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)