S LOGANATHAN Vs. CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the facts leading to all the writ petitions are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE writ petitioners, S.Loganathan, J.Adikesavan and S.Govindaraj in W.P.Nos.4150, 4153 and 4142 of 2010 respectively are being the farmers, cultivating various flowers like, Jasmine, Jathi and Mullai from their own agricultural lands at Kavanur Village, Arakonam Taluk, Vellore District. After harvesting them, transported the same from Kavanur Village, Arakonam Taluk to Chennai for the purpose of selling the same to the consumers. THE petitioner in W.P.No.4142/2010 is the tenant in respect of shop portion in the premises bearing Door No.6/1 and 18-B, Badrian Street, Chennai - 600 001 and selling his own agricultural produce of flowers from this premises. THE Tamil Nadu Government, after enacting the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Market (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996, to regulate the location of market areas and wholesale markets in respect of specified commodities in the Metropolitan Planning Area, notified the Koyambedue Area as a special market as per Section 19 of the said Act and all the wholesale traders of flowers, vegetables, fruits and other perishable goods were shifted to Koyambedue market. In view of the shifting of the place from city area to Koyambedue area, some of the flower vendors filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29809 of 2004 challenging the eviction drive of the respondents, but the same was dismissed. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2009, a meeting was also conducted in respect of the members of the said association, who filed the writ petition, but the petitioners being the non member of the said association, no intimation was served on them by the respondents herein. However, on coming to know the steps taken by the respondents herein for evicting the flower vendors from the Badrian Street, Chennai, the petitioners gave a representation to the 1st respondent by speed post with acknowledgement card due, requesting them to give notice in the above said address in respect of the proposed eviction drive. But, the 1st respondent, by letter dated 12.02.2010, informed the petitioner that he is a wholesale trader of flowers and as he is not directly selling flowers to the consumers, the respondent imposed ban from selling flowers with effect from 01.03.2010 from the premises at Door. No.6/1 and 18-B, Badrian Street, Chennai and further, the petitioner was warned not to sell the flowers in the said place, failing which, his scale and other instruments including the vehicles transporting flowers, would be seized without any further notice to him. As the petitioner was not wholesale trader, but the primary producer, he sent another representation to the 1st respondent requesting him to hold the proper enquiry and afford reasonable opportunity to put forth his grievance, by clearly informing that he is selling his agricultural produce of all these years and thus, leading his livelihood. But, thereafter, there was no response from the respondents. However, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 12.02.2010, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) FURTHER, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.4340/2010, has submitted that if the respondent/CMDA has followed the direction of this Court properly, all the members of the petitioner's association could have availed the appeal remedy under Section 45 of the Act and thereafter, the benefit of revision provided under Section 46 of the Act. Since the respondent has not considered in passing the appropriate order dealing with their cases, whether they are retail vendors or wholesale vendors, the impugned order without dealing their cases, has deprived of the appeal as well as revision remedy as mentioned above.