UNION OF INDIA Vs. S KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the short question involved is whether any civil right is involved for the plaintiff to file the suit, I thought, it is better to dispose of the matter early and issued notice of motion.

(2.) THE appellants are the defendants in the suit o. S. No. 231 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court , Pondicherry . THE respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner and proprietor of the Fair Price Shop No. 28, Kamaraj Salai, saram, Pondicherry and for mandatory injunction directing the third defendant to restore possession of the commodities and personal properties taken by him, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Fair Price Shop No. 28. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father one Shanmuga Udayar was running a Fair Price shop, the subject-matter of the suit. He died six months prior to the filing of the suit and after his death, the plaintiff was running the shop with the permission of the second defendant. THE Essential Commodities were supplied to him for distribution. On 3. 8. 1987 the third defendant came to the shop, broke open the lock, took away all the articles in addition to cash and title deeds, for which, a complaint was lodged by the plaintiff with the Superintendent of police. THE conduct of the second defendant in supplying essential commodities to the plaintiff amounted to tacit approval of transfer of permit to run the fair price shop even after the demise of his father, and since the conduct of the third defendant offends the right of the plaintiff to run the fair price shop, the suit has been filed. THE second defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 1 and 3. THE defendants had raised the plea that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. and the relief claimed in the suit is not of civil nature. Since the Licensee of the fair Price shop, the father of the plaintiff, died suddenly, the plaintiff was permitted to run the fair price shop only as an interim measure. By order dated 30. 7. 1987, the plaintiff was directed to hand over the fair price shop to the administrator, Pondicherry Public Servants Cooperative Society Limited, Pondicherry . THE copy of the order was served on the plaintiff on 31. 7. 1987 and since the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, the third defendant took action.

(3.) THE conduct of the second respondent in permitting the plaintiff or his mother to continue to run the fair price shop until an alternative arrangement is made, will not entitle the plaintiff to claim such allotment as of right. THE interim arrangement, as pleaded by the appellant, may be for the convenience of the cardholders who have been attached to that particular fair price shop. Further there is no dispute that the third defendant had directed the plaintiff to hand over the stock to the co-operative society. THE plaintiff has not chosen to challenge the Order, dated 30. 7. 1987 directing him to hand over the stall with all Essential Commodities to the Administrator, pondicherry Public Servants Co-operative Society Limited. Without challenging the said order, it is not open to the plaintiff to file the suit for the relief of declaration. THE declaratory relief cannot be sustained because the plaintiff is not the owner of the fair price shop, especially, when it is a privilege, that is being conferred by way of allotment by the Authorities prescribed under the Pondicherry Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of distribution by Card System) Order, 1975.