S.K.T. Rajendiran vs The District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal and The Divisional Manager Tasmac Namakkal

M. Jaichandren

This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the

records relating to the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated30.9.2011, rejecting the request of the petitioner to shift the Bar

attached to TASMAC Shop No. 5946, situated at Poothanur in Paramathi vellore Taluk, Namakkal District.

It has been stated that the petitioner had been granted the licence to run a bar attached to TASMAC ShopNo. 5946 situated at Poothanur for

the period, from 1.8.2011to 31.7.2012.

It has been further stated that the petitioner had been suffering heavy financial losses in business due to the wrong location of the shop in

question. Therefore, the petitioner had made a request to the respondents to shift the shop situated at Poothanur to a better place at shopNo. 1, on

Thiurvallur salai, (Vellore to Jedarpalayam road).However, the second respondent had rejected the request made by the petitioner stating that the

permission to shift the shop, as requested by the petitioner, cannot be granted, due to the existence of a cell phone tower close to the proposed

site.

Even though the second respondent has stated that the petitioner had not appeared at the proposed site during inspection, no notice had been

issued to the petitioner before the inspection had been conducted at the proposed site. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second

respondent is invalid in the eye of law.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had written a letter to the District

Manager, TASMAC, Namakkal District, received on 26.11.2011, stating that he had closed his business due to the financial losses he had

incurred. In the said letter, he had requested the first respondent to return the balance amount of the security deposit and the other amounts paid by

the petitioner, if any, to the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had also submitted that the necessary permission to shift the shop to the proposed site could

not be granted, due to the existence of an electricity transformer, which is not a cell phone tower, as stated by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, close to the site. He had also submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner had closed his business, the request made by him could

not be considered by the respondents. However, the request of the petitioner to return the balance amounts, paid by the petitioner, if any, would

be considered by the respondents and appropriate orders would be passed, in accordance with law.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this

Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the second respondent cannot be said to be arbitrary or invalid, as alleged by

the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had sent a letter to the first respondent, which had been received, on 26.11.2011, stating that he had closed

his business due to the financial losses he had suffered. In such circumstances, in view of the reasons stated by the second respondent, the relief

sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, at this stage. However, the first respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner for the return

of the balance amounts paid by the petitioner, if any, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as per law, as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No. 1 of 2012 is closed.