1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.10138 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 V.Sudhakaran : Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. : Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.335/2010/A4 dated Nil.11.2010 communicated to the petitioner by proceedings Na.Ka.No.335/10/A4 dated Nil.08.2011 by the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to renew the license for sale of crackers in the premises bearing D.No.561, Madurai-Theni Road, Andipatti, Theni District by considering the application dated 4.1.2011 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of license in License No.03/2005/APT dated 24.10.2005 within the period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Natarajan For Respondents : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, Government Advocate. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a report of the Revenue Divisional Officer recommending cancellation of the license for carrying on the business of crackers. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard Mr.M.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of selling crackers during Diwali seasons, by obtaining a license from the respondents. The first time a license was granted to the petitioner was in the year 1999. Though it was cancelled in 2004, the license was restored in 2005 and the petitioner has been carrying on business year-after-year after getting the license renewed. 4. But when the last application for renewal was taken up for consideration, the Revenue Divisional Officer sent a report to the District Revenue Officer stating that the petitioner has already suffered an order of eviction before the Rent Controller at the instance of the landlord of the premises. Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer recommended cancellation of the license. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The impugned order is contrary to law at least for three reasons viz.,:- (i) There is no question of revocation of license of the petitioner, since the license of the petitioner had already expired. There is no question of cancellation of a license which had expired 8 months ago. The petitioner's license expired in March 2010 and it was recommended to be cancelled by the communication dated November 2010. Therefore, the impugned communication proceeds on a factually wrong basis. (ii) The petitioner suffered an order of eviction at the instance of the landlord in RCOP No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Andipatti. But it was an ex parte order of eviction, which was subsequently set aside by the Rent Controller by an order dated 1.8.2011 passed in M.P.No.105 of 2011. Therefore, the basis on which the impugned communication was sent, does not exist any longer. (iii) A perusal of the eviction petition filed by the landlord would show that the landlord had sought eviction of the petitioner, not on the ground of different user, but on the grounds of willful default and bona fide requirement for own use and occupation. The petition for eviction has been filed under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Though a passing reference is made in the petition for eviction about the fact that the petitioner is using the property for selling crackers, the landlord has not made a grievance out of the same and sought eviction on that ground. 6. Therefore, the impugned recommendation cannot be sustained and hence, the writ petition is ordered, directing the second respondent to independently consider the application of the petitioner without the aforesaid reasons and pass appropriate orders, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. 2.The District Revenue Officer, Theni District, Theni. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam, Theni District. +One CC to Mr.M.AjmalKhan, Advocate, SR.No.36405 Svn rl/5 c- 20.10.2011 WP(MD) No.10138/2011 20-10-2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/