UNION OF INDIA Vs. N R M SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and Decree, dated 30.4.1996 made in O.S. No. 2 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.

(2.) THE appellants herein were the defendants in the suit before the trial Court. THE suit was filed by the respondent herein seeking a decree, declaring that the order of confirmation, dated 30.6.1995 in No. 5153/95-96/C2 for shop No. 3 (Arrack Shop) Karaikal Municipality in favour of the plaintiff is void abinitio and as such a non- est document incapable of being acted upon and in the alternate to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants to ensure the location of shops 2 and 4, as per notification, dated 12.6.1995 in No. 1531/T1/95.

(3.) IN the written statement, the appellants have admitted that the respondent was the successful bidder for Rs. 2,53,000/- monthly kist in respect of Shop No. 3, Keezhaveli for the period 1995-96 and that the confirmation order was communicated to the respondent on 30.6.1995. The security deposit of three months kist amounted for Rs. 7,59,000/- was also paid by the respondent. According to the appellants, the respondent had lifted 417 litres of arrack per day, as per the Gazette Notification. There was no bidder for Shop No. 2, hence, the same was not run by any one right from 1.7.1995 and therefore, according to the appellants, the loss sustained by him on account of Shop No. 2 is not true. So far as Shop No. 4 is concerned, the lessee thereof was running arrack business for sometime in an unauthorised place. When the same was brought to the notice of the third appellant through some other sources other than the respondent, he took immediate steps to see that Shop No. 4 Melaveli was shifted to the notified place, as per the Official Gazette Notification No. 48, dated 12.6.1995. According to the appellants, Shop No. 4 was shifted to the notified place with effect from 29.9.1995 and also denied the averments of the respondent that he had given representation on 12.7.1995. According to the appellants, there was progressive increase in the bid amounts every year and the allegation that the respondent had sustained loss on account of Shop Nos. 2 and 4 functioning in the same old places was also denied by the appellants. With the above said pleadings, the appellants, as defendants had sought for the dismissal of the suit.