1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.7511 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 V.Ramar : Petitioner Vs. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. : Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from interfering with petitioners peaceful running of the bar in shop No.7717 at Sivagangai District till 31.07.2011 as per licence given by the respondent in his order in Na.Ka.No.B/884/10, 31.07.2010. For petitioner : Mr.S.Karthick For respondent : Mr.K.Mahendran Special Govt. Pleader ORDER The petitioner has a licence of shop No.7717 at Sivgangai District and permitted to collect empty bottles and to sell snacks etc. He has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent not to interfere with his running of the bar attached to Shop No.7717 at Sivagangai District, till 31.07.2011 as per licence. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that from the date of issuance of licence, for the period from 01.08.2010 to 31.07.2011, the petitioner has been running the bar without any adverse notice and all of a sudden, the respondent has insisted the petitioner to vacate the shop. According to him, as per the licence condition, he is entitled to run the bar upto 31.07.2011. 3.Considering the averments made in the writ petition and the relief sought for, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, for TASMAC, was put on notice and on instructions, he submitted that earlier orders have been issued to shift the shop from the current place, which has not been done by the petitioner. 4.He also submitted that though the licencee has to remit the monthly licence fee, well in advance i.e., before 10th of every month, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 in the case on hand, the petitioner has not remitted the monthly licence fee for the months of June and July 2011 and therefore, he has no right to seek for a writ of mandamus and that it would be amounting to granting permission, without any licence. 5.Repudiating the above contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this court to the licence, dated 31.07.2010 issued by the licensing authority and submitted that it is the normal practice, that all licencees would not remit the last instalment of licence fee and that it would be adjusted from the security deposit already deposited with the respondent. According to him, two months security deposit of Rs.80,400/- is available with the respondent and therefore, the licence fee, even though not paid could be adjusted. He also submitted that so far, the petitioner has not come to any adverse notice and therefore, there is no possibility of deduction from the said amount. 6.By way of reply, Mr.K.Mahendran, learned Special Government Pleader, for TASMAC submitted that payment of licence fee is mandatory and caution deposit cannot be adjusted. According to him, caution deposit is only to recover any loss caused by the licencee, which could be ascertained at the end of the licence period. Hence, for the above reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7.Admittedly, the licence period ends on 31.07.2011. Though, the learned Special Government for TASMAC submitted that orders have already been issued for shifting/re-location of the shop bearing No.7717, Sivagangai District and further submitted that in-as-much- as, the petitioner had not implemented the directions as stated supra, closure of the shop is warranted for the purpose of relocation. It is evident that at the fag end of the licence period, the shop is sought to be relocated. No-doubt, it is prerogative of the Corporation to locate the shop, depending upon the sale potentiality and other conditions, prevailing, nevertheless, if there is any breach of conditions or any directions issued from time to time, it is obligatory on the part of the licensing authority to issue a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner, as to why the licence should not be cancelled and if the explanation is not satisfactory, it is always open to the licensing authority to take appropriate action, regarding the closure of the bar. 8.In the case on hand, no such action has been taken by the licensing authority. Nevertheless, the contentions of the petitioner that he has come to any adverse notice and that there is no possibility of any deduction from the caution deposit of Rs.80,400/- already deposited with the Corporation are not disputed. There are hardly 23 days for the expiry of the licence period. Having regard to the fact that, no materials have been placed before this court to prove that the petitioner has come to any adverse notice during the currency of the licence period and the fact that the licence fee for the remaining period can always be deducted from the caution deposit, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 in the interest of justice, this court is inclined to issue a direction to the respondent, to permit the petitioner to run the shop upto 31.07.2011. 9.It is made clear that this order is passed taking into consideration of the peculiar facts stated supra and it should not be taken as precedent, in any other case. 10.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. +1cc to Mr.S.Karthick, Advocate SR.No.22302 er akm/12.07.11 /3p-3c/ order in W.P.(MD).No.7511 of 2011 08.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/