E.S. SAFIULLA Vs. COMMISSIONER, GUDIYATTAM MUNICIPALITY, GUDIYATTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner claims that he has been running a beef stall in Gudiyattam town. According to him he was holding a licence for the same for many years and he had applied for renewal in 1990 itself and the same was not renewed. On 17-3-1994 the respondent issued a notice asking the petitioner to close down the shop for the reasons mentioned therein. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the said notice and seeking a direction to the respondent to grant renewal of the licence for the shop No. 124/13, Badey Sahib Street Lane, Mousampet, Gudiyattam. The petitioner obtained an order of interim injunction and to vacate the same, the respondent filed W.M.P. No. 6608 of 1997, and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is specifically stated that the shop of the petitioner is in the midst of residential locality and houses. According to the respondent, the petitioner has been causing health hazard spoiling the environment of the locality to which the public are objecting. The petitioner seems to be running the business without any licence. He never applied for nor paid any fee either for licence or for renewal as stated in the writ petition. The respondent has specifically stated that the petitioner filed a suit in O. S. No. 325 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam seeking for a decree for permanent injunction straining the respondent herein from obstructing or in any manner interfering with the rum g of the business of beef stall and the schedule of property has been mentioned in the said suit is Door No. 12A/32, Badey Sahbi Street Thalayathan, Gudiyattam. But, in the said suit, the petitioner obtained on order of injunction and subsequently on 24-6-1994, the District Munsif Court, dismissed the injunction petition. Even in C.M.A. No. 69 of 1994 the Sub-Court, Vellore declined to grant temporary injunction. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition without even revealing the filing of the Civil Suit before the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam.

(2.) The learned senior counsel Mr. M. N. Padmanabhan, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been running the business after getting licence and the same was not renewed after 1990. The civil suit relied on by the respondent is not relating to the shop mentioned in the writ petition. The respondent cannot be allowed to interfere with the petitioners business without following the procedure before evicting the petitioner from his shop. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent per contra has submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed mainly on the ground of suppression of relevant facts before this Court. Moreover, in the counter, the respondent has denied the fact that the petitioner has obtained licence and paid the renewal fee. The learned counsel further submitted that the property which is the subject matter in the suit and writ petition is one and the same. The cause of action for filing the suit is only the impugned notice, and so the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition challenging the impugned notice issued by the respondent on the basis that the petitioner has been running the shop in the residential area and in the place not provided for that purpose. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has filed the suit O. S, No. 325/1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam and tried to get interim injunction. Even in the body of the plaint, the petitioner has only challenged the impugned notice. The cause of action for filing the suit is also the impugned notice. In the schedule of property, the petitioner has mentioned the door No. 12A/32. But, admittedly, the petitioner has not mentioned about the fact regarding the filing of the said suit in the writ petition. It is well settled that it is the duty of a person invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court to make full and true disclosure of all relevant facts. He should not suppress any fact. The Court for its own protection and to prevent abuse of process can always proceed further with the case on merits. In this case the petitioner has not mentioned anything about the pendency of the suit. Such non-mentioning of facts is only with an intention to get interim orders before this Court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the shop which is the subject matter in the suit and writ petition is different. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is running two different shops and he has been issued notice dated 17-3-1994 to the alleged other shop similar to that of the suit shop. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner has stated in his affidavit that he is residing at No. 12A/13, Badey Sahib Street Lane, Gudiyattam. But it is his specific case that he is doing business at 12A/13, Badey Sahib Street, Gudiyattam. All these facts will clearly prove that the petitioner was doing business only in one shop and for that shop, the impugned notice has been issued. The petitioner cannot escape by saying that there are two different shops for which there is no material available before this Court.