MURUGAN AUTO SERVICE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent relating to Proceedings No. 14876/94/a2 dated 20. 12. 1994 and the consequential order of the second respondent in Proceedings No. 14876/94/a2 dated 16. 5. 1997, quash the same and direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 40,000/- paid by the petitioner's Bunk on 6. 12. 1995.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a dealer of a petrol bunk with the fourth respondent Corporation. There was a lease agreement in the year 1974 between the first respondent and the fourth respondent and the rent was fixed at Rs. 694/= per annum and the lease period was extended till the year 1984. Since the lease period expired on 31. 12. 1984 the fourth respondent sent an application to respondents 1 and 2 for renewal of lease because it is a Government land. The second respondent also has recommended the renewal of the lease. Since the lease has not been extended, the fourth respondent made representations, for which the second respondent sent a letter on 18. 2. 1993 stating that from 1988 onwards, the power of giving lease has been transferred to the Highway Department since the property belongs to the said department and directed the petitioner to approach the Highways Department. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to the Highways Department, but no orders have been passed till date.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that on 20. 12. 1994, the second respondent herein, based upon the audit report, passed an order directing the fourth respondent Corporation and the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,36,579/= fixing the rent from 1. 1. 1985 to 31. 12. 1994 on the expiry of the lease period on 31. 12. 1984. Thereafter, yet another representation was made to the first respondent making their objections, but without considering the same, the first respondent passed an order on 7. 5. 1997 directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,65,289/= within a period of one week, otherwise recovery proceedings would be initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. Thereafter, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 16. 5. 1997, challenging which, the present writ petition has been filed.