S P SARAVANAN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing the resolution No.1212 dated 30.1.2001 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2535/2002/H1 dated 11.11.2002.

(2.) Petitioner is the owner of an agricultural and poultry farm. The petitioner in his own building, coming within the area of the second respondent, decided to install a mutton and chicken stall. He filed an application requesting the respondents to grant licence for running the mutton and chicken stall. Since the formal application dated 21.7.2002 had remained pending, the petitioner opened the stall on 11.8.2002, but subsequently a notice was issued by the respondent under Sections 269 and 313 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act directing the petitioner to close the shop as he was running the shop without licence. Subsequently, a further notice dated 19.8.2002 was issued. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.NO.35300 of 2002. Learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 12.9.2002 directing the respondent Municipality to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of licence. It was further observed that if the application filed was not in accordance with law, it would be open to the petitioner to file fresh application. While the application was pending, the respondents attempted to interfere with the running of the shop. The petitioner had filed a suit, but the same was withdrawn. Subsequently, the petitioner came to learn that licence fee regarding various items had been fixed and accordingly the petitioner applied for licence by depositing the licence fee of Rs.550/-. The application was rejected on the ground that the Municipal Council has already passed a resolution indicating that the licence for running chicken and mutton stall shall not be granted to a private person. At that stage, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41657 of 2002 and the said writ petition was disposed of with an observation that a copy of the resolution should be furnished to the petitioner and it would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the said resolution. In the above background, the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the resolution of the Muncipality and for quashing the consequential order passed by the first respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner.

(3.) Even though no formal counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, a copy of the written instructions obtained by the counsel for the respondents has been filed in the Court and the same has been treated as counter in the case. In such written instructions, which has been treated as counter, it has been indicated that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 by having non-vegetarian private market in a purely residential area. It has been stated that the Council has passed a resolution not to issue licence for private individuals as the same would cause health hazard to the public and would affect the income of the Municipality.