IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.3.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.3996 of 2010 Tvl.Sasi kumar … petitioner Vs. 1. The member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 8 2. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai. … Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Letter No.K1/1194/2004, dated 12.2.2010 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary against law. For petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan senior Advocate for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar For respondents : Mr.I.Paranthaman for R1 Mr.A.Mohamed Ghouse for R2 O R D E R This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash letter No.K1/1194/2004, dated 12.2.2010, issued by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is carrying on retail business in flowers, at shop No.20G, Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai. Before the classification and allotment of shops at Koyambedu Bus stand, the wholesale vendors and the retailers were carrying on business at Badrian Street, in and around the old bus stand and in the kotwal Chavadi Market area. After the establishment of the shops at Koyambedu, all the wholesale dealers, who were carrying on business in flowers, at the flower bazaar and at Badrian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Street, had shifted their place of business to Koyambedu, as they had been allotted the shops to carry on their business. The shops at Koyambedu had been provided with all the necessary facilities, including the necessary space for storage of flowers. 3. It has been further stated that even though no wholesale business was being carried on at Badrian Street, a group of persons, claiming to be wholesale dealers, carrying on their business at Koyambedu flower market, had represented to the respondents alleging that certain retailers were carrying on wholesale business in flowers at Badrian Street. Based on such representation, the respondents had issued notices to the petitioner and to the Association of retail vendors, in which the petitioner is a member. 4. It has also been stated that the notices issued by the respondents had been challenged before this Court, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. This Court had passed an order directing the respondents to give notice to the petitioner and after holding an enquiry, the respondents could determine the nature of the business being carried on by the various flowers vendors and to decide as to whether they were carrying on wholesale or retail business in flowers. Though the first respondent had issued the call letter, calling upon the retailers to attend a meeting, along with the relevant records, it was only a public hearing. Thereafter, based on the report filed by the respondents, the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued, without following the directions issued by this Court. By the impugned letter, the petitioner had been asked to stop his wholesale business in flowers, from 1.3.2010. By the said letter a warning had also been issued that if the petitioner does not stop his business, as directed by the impugned letter, his weighing scales and other equipments, including the vehicles used for transportation of flowers, would be seized. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The main contention of Mr.A.Thiayagarajan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the respondents do not have any legal authority to come to a conclusion that all the 130 members of the petitioner Association are carrying on wholesale business, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the individual members. It has not been shown, by way of records, as to how the respondents had come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a wholesale vendor in flowers. In spite of the fact that this Court, by its order, dated 27.11.2009, made in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009, had issued directions to the respondents to take appropriate action, as per law, after issuing notices to the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association and to its members, in order to give them an opportunity of hearing, the respondents had not issued such a notice to the petitioner before he was termed as a wholesale dealer in flowers. Even if the respondents could claim that their decisions were based on reports filed by its officials, who had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assigned the responsibility of verifying as to whether the members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association are carrying on retail or wholesale business in flowers, the respondents cannot come to any definite conclusion without giving an opportunity of hearing to the individual members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association. 6. The learned counsel had also stated that the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, is not only arbitrary, but also mala fide in nature. The first respondent is taking action against the petitioner and the other members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association only based on certain erroneous representations made by some persons claiming to be wholesale vendors in flowers, doing their business in the Koyambedu market area. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the respondents should clearly specify as to who are all the members of the Association doing wholesale business in flowers. After the necessary particulars had been given to the respondents by the individual members of the Association, no report had been given by the respondents to the members before issuing the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010. No records had been shown by the respondents to substantiate their claims that show cause notices had been given to the petitioner and to the other members of the Association. He had also stated that the respondents had not followed the procedures established by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents are strictly following the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009, dated 27.11.2009. The respondents had issued the necessary notices to the petitioner and to the other members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association asking them to show, by way of records, as to whether they were carrying on retail or wholesale business in flowers, at Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai. After giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing, the impugned notice, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued by the first respondent asking the petitioner and the others to stop their whole sale business in flowers. 9. The learned counsel had also submitted that it is for the petitioner to substantiate his claim, by way of documentary evidence, that he is not carrying on whole sale business in flowers. However, if it is found by the respondents that the petitioner is carrying on wholesale business in flowers, he would be evicted from his place of business and further action would be initiated, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the first respondent had issued the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, only in accordance with the directions issued by this Court, in its order, dated 27.11.2009, made in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. The necessary procedures had been followed by the respondents before the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued to the petitioner. The Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association, as well as all the individual members of the said Association, including the petitioner, had been given sufficient opportunity of hearing before the communication, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued by the first respondent. Further, the said communication had been issued only after sufficient enquiries had been made and it is based on a detailed report filed by certain responsible officers representing the respondents. The order, dated 27.11.2009, passed by this Court, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009, does not contemplate a second show cause notice before the respondents come to their conclusions, in respect of the nature of the business being carried on by the members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association, including the petitioner herein. 11. The learned counsel had also submitted that the notices had been issued to the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association and to all its members calling them to attend a meeting, pursuant to the order, dated 27.11.2009, issued by this Court, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. Thereafter, by a letter, singed, on 11.1.2010, an intimation had been sent to the President of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association, intimating that a meeting would be held, on 18.1.2010, in continuation of the enquiry held, on 31.12.2009. It had also been requested that all the relevant particulars, relating to the members of the Association, should be submitted in the prescribed format. A cheque list/format for assessing the wholesale trade in flower business at Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai, had also been distributed stating that the details required therein should be furnished at the time of the enquiry. The cheque list/format had contained the various columns requiring information regarding the name of the trader, door number, shop number and name, shop area, number of years in the business in the area, type of flower business (all/jasmine/rose/etc), quantum of product handled in kilograms, source of purchase/KWMC/outside (producer), details of storage space/containers with capacity in kilograms, duration of business hours, type of product sold such as Malai/Kathambam, Raw flower or both, quantum of sales in feet/mulam or in kilograms, trade license/ST/etc., Association Membership details and remarks, whole sale/retail business. 12. Thereafter, letters had been addressed by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, to the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, intimating the details regarding the meeting, which was to be held, pursuant to the order of this Court, dated 27.11.2009, made in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. After https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ receiving the necessary particulars, a survey had been done, both by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, as well as the Corporation of Chennai, based on which it was found that the petitioner and the other members of the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association were carrying on wholesale business in flowers. Therefore, the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued by the first respondent, asking them to stop their business in wholesale vending of flowers, failing which they have been warned that their weighing scales and other such tools used by the traders, as well as the vehicles transporting the flowers, would be confiscated. In such circumstances, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority had placed before this Court a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 30.4.2010, (K.R.RAMASWAMY @ TRAFFIC RAMASWAMY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE REP. BY THE HOME SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-600 009) wherein certain directions had been issued, with regard to the shifting of iron and steel market from George Town area to Sathangadu to justify the action taken by the respondents, in respect of retail vendors in flowers. 14. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and on considering the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the original records produced before this Court, by the respondents, it is clear that the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants' Welfare Association and its members, including the petitioner, had been given sufficient opportunity of representing their cases, as per the directions issued by this Court, on 27.11.2009, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. The impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, has been issued by the first respondent, based on the enquiry held on various dates and it is based on the particulars submitted by the individuals and on the reports submitted by the authorized officers of the respondents. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case before the impugned letter, dated 12.2.2010, had been issued by the first respondent. The concept of principles of natural justice cannot be strictly applied as a straightjacket formula, in all circumstances and in all situations. It can neither be like an unruly horse, nor like a run-away train, sans control or direction. It would apply differently to different situations, as found to be necessary. 15. Further, it cannot be said that the letter, dated 12.2.2010, issued by the first respondent is arbitrary and invalid, as it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is noted that the respondents had, scrupulously, followed the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 27.11.2009, in W.P.Nos.29809 of 2004 and 12909 of 2009. While so, it cannot be claimed that the impugned letter of the first respondent, dated 12.2.2010, is contrary to the directions issued by this Court. Endless enquiries have not been contemplated in the order passed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this Court, on 27.11.2009. When most of the wholesale vendors in flowers had shifted from the George Town Area, Chennai to the Koyambedu Market Area, there cannot be any acceptable reason for the respondents to permit the petitioner and other such wholesale vendors in flowers to carry on their trade at Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai, to the detriment of the other wholesale vendors, who had shifted their business to the Koyambedu Market Area. 16. It is also clear that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act, 1996, will not be applicable to the petitioner, unless he is carrying on ‘wholesale trade’, as defined under clause 14 of Section 2 of the said Act. 17. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar lan To 1. The member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 8 2. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai. 1 cc To Mr.I.Paranthaman, Advocate, SR.14439 1 cc To Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, SR.14357 Writ Petition No.3996 of 2010 sv(co) pmk.4.3.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/