ANDISERS AND ELECTROPLATERS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is carrying on a small-scale electro-plating industry has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the government of Madras passed in G. O. Ms. No. 3825, Department of Industries, labour and Co-operation, dated 16-7-1965 directing the petitioner to place the portion of the premises No. 304-A, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras, occupied by it at the disposal of the Chingleput District Co-operative. Supply and Marketing society Ltd. , within three months of the date of the order. The impugned order has been passed by the Government, the first respondent herein, in exercise of their powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S. 29 of the Defence of India Act as they were of opinion that it was necessary to requisition the said premises for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, namely, for the improvement of the consumer activities by the said society, the second respondent herein.

(2.) THE Chingleput District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society, Ltd. , is registered as a Co-operative Society under Madras Act 6 of 1932. The objects of the Society, among other things, are to purchase the necessaries of life for distribution among the affiliated stores and societies, to open depots or branches for wholesale stocking and distribution, to rent or own godowns within its jurisdiction and elsewhere, if necessary to facilitate the storage and sale of agricultural and other produce belonging to it, its members and the members of its affiliated societies, to act as agent of those members which are affiliated societies in the matter of receiving for sale custody the produce pledged with such societies by their individual members, and to act as agent of Government for procurement, supply and distribution of agricultural and other produce or other goods.

(3.) THE Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras, by his letter dated 16-6-1962, addressed to the second respondent-society, informed the Society that provision had been made in the Third Five-Year Plan for State contribution in the share capital of District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Societies for the establishment of rice mills, and that for the year 1962-63, it was proposed to provide assistance to the second respondent society, among others. The Society was asked to send proposals with plans and estimates. The second respondent. Society who wanted to implement the scheme of marketing of agricultural produce, under which the Society purchased heavy stock of paddy, converted them into rice and sold the rice in the City and who was in search of a suitable godown, came across the property in question, and took up the matter with the registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies permitted the Society to purchase the building and land in 304-A. Thiruvottiyur high Road, for the purpose. The Society purchased the property on 23-6-1963 for rs. 2,75,000 from one Remasami Mudaliar. At the time when the second respondent purchased the property, various tenants were occupying portions of the property, and the petitioner was one among them. The petitioner was carrying on business in the premises for the last 20 years paying a rent of Rs. 250 per month. Premises No. 304-A. Thiruvottiyur High Road, comprises about 50 grounds whereof 14 grounds are roofed sheds and the remaining are open spaces with a well. The second respondent-Society occupied a portion of the premises and began to take proceedings for the eviction of the tenants, in order to enable them to stock rice and other food-grains and fertilisers under the scheme for the stabilisation of prices. Some of the tenants vacated the premises, but the petitioner insisted upon continuing in the premises, as it had invested huge sums of money in acquiring and installing machinery, for the purpose of carrying on its business, It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the expenses of removing and installing the said machinery would amount to above Rs. 25,000, that it would be impossible to find suitable location elsewhere, and that the reputation and custom acquired by the present location would thereby be irretrievably lost. It is also alleged in the affidavit that in order to coerce the petitioner to quit the premises. The second respondent took proceedings under the rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner from the portion occupied by it, on the ground that the Society required that portion for its bona fide occupation. The petitioner resisted that application contending that there were several rooms in the premises which the Society could make use of for its work and business. The petition under the Rent Control Act was filed in February 1964. The counter to the petition was filed in April 1964. It appears that during this period a communication was received by the State Government from the Government of India that the consumers' Co-operative Stores were experiencing great difficulties in getting suitable accommodation and that with a view to solve the difficulty, action could be taken under the Defence of India Act, to requisition premises for providing accommodation, if and when persuasive methods failed. Naturally, taking advantage of this communication, the second respondent-Society corresponded with the State Government, the first respondent herein, which eventually ended in the passing of the order, which is impugned in this petition. It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent to maliciously invoke the extraordinary provisions under the Defence of India Act, and the rules made thereunder, which could be exercised only to meet special and temporary emergencies. It is further alleged that the resort to these powers by the respondents constitutes abuse of such a power vested in the first respondent.