D ESLIN JOSPEH Vs. DINDIGUL MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was running a juice stall at "Kamaraj Bus Stand", Dindigul, which is owned by the respondent/Municipality. THE petitioner was allotted a place of 5 ft x 6 ft. to sell apple juice and other fruit products on the said bus stand by the order of the Director of Municipal Administration dated 29.4.1987. THE Municipal Committee was directed to charge a nominal rate and also to pass a council resolution for approval by the Director. THEreafter, the Council passed a resolution on 9.10.1990 granting permission to the petitioner to run a juice stall on the South side of the telephone booth, opposite to the booking counter. In that resolution, 9 conditions were imposed and ti was also stated that the licence will be valid for a period of one year from the date.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was running the said shop and he had not violated any condition. However, the respondent tried to interfere with the running of the said juice stall at the instance of his rival traders and revenue officials of the municipality on 7.8.1992 and prevented the petitioner from carrying on his business, which has forced petitioner to file a suit before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.1157/1992 with a prayer for preventing the respondents or any other person from interfering in carrying on his business and that he should be dispossessed only by due process of law. THE said Court framed an issue stating that whether the suit was maintainable and that when the petitioner was not having any licence but only a lease, his right can be terminated only by a due process of law. THE suit was decreed on 20.10.1985. THE respondent had not challenged the same.

(3.) THE stand of the respondent was that prior notice was given to the petitioner on 8.12.2006 and as the petitioner was not available and he was stated to be in Madurai and it could not be served in person in Madurai. THErefore, it was affixed in the premises. THE second notice was given on 8.1.2007. Once again, endorsement was made stating that it was merely affixed and nothing was mentioned about the availability of the petitioner in the disputed premises.