WA(MD)/1652/2016 of G.RAMASUBRAMANI Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR on 29 December 2016

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN,J.)

The appellant/writ petitioner challenged the terminationnotice issued by the second respondent dated 11.03.2009, in and bywhich, the dealership awarded to the appellant/writ petitioner tohttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/run the TANTEA Sales Bunk, was terminated and the writ petitionfiled by him was dismissed on 16.12.2016. Challenging the legality of the same, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed this writappeal.

2. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he wasgiven an allotment order on 30.09.1994 permitting him to sell teapackets and snacks along with the liquid tea to be supplied by therespondents and he has been running the business in the saidplace, however, the second respondent cancelled the allotment ofthe petitioner by virtue of the termination order dated11.03.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/writ petitionerfiled the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2018 of 2009.

3. Whereas it was contended by the learned Counsel for therespondents that in the allotment order dated 30.09.1994 itself,the period of one year was mentioned and there was no provisionavailable with regard to automatic extension or renewal ofallotment and further, the agreement of the appellant/writpetitioner got expired and in those circumstances, the secondrespondent rightly passed the termination order dated 11.03.2009.

4. The learned Judge, after considering the rival submissionsand on going through the impugned order, found that there is nospecific clause in the allotment order for automatic renewal andfurther that institution of a civil suit and also obtaining atemporary injunction against a District Forest Officer is not animpediment on the part of the second respondent to pass theimpugned order and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

5. Challenging the same, the appellant/writ petitioner isbefore this Court.

6. Mr.S.Poornachandran, learned Counsel for the appellant/writpetitioner would submit that since the respondents made attemptsto evict the appellant/writ petitioner without following dueprocess of law, he instituted a civil suit against the DistrictForest Officer and obtained an order of interim injunction andthat since the said interim order was violated, he filed contemptpetition against the District Forest Officer, in which, he waspunished and the second respondent passed the termination orderwithout affording any opportunity of personal hearing to theappellant/writ petitioner and on that ground also, the said orderis vitiated.

7. Heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for theappellant/writ petitioner and perused the materials available onrecord.

8. A careful scrutiny of the materials available before us inhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the form of typed set of documents filed by the appellant/writpetitioner, among other things, would reveal the following:

8.1. The appellant/writ petitioner was allotted a TANTEA SalesBunk, vide order dated 30.09.1994 by the respondent Corporation;8.2. The said allotment order is valid for a period of oneyear and it has to be extended every year; 8.3. The rent fixed by the respondent Corporation is withregard to the Sales Bunk at the space of 8' X 8' at Outpost,Alagarkoil Main Road, Madurai;8.4. The respondent Corporation, vide letter dated 24.03.2005,informed the appellant/writ petitioner to renew the agreement onor before 31.03.2005; 8.5. In the meantime, the appellant/writ petitioner filed acivil suit in O.S.No.761 of 2005 before the Principal DistrictMunsif, Madurai Town, seeking permanent injunction restraining thedefendant therein in any way evicting the appellant/writpetitioner from the suit property as lessee except under the dueprocess of law; 8.6. In the said suit, the appellant/writ petitioner filedI.A.No.510 of 2005 seeking ad-interim temporary injunction and thesame was allowed; 8.7. Surprisingly, the appellant/writ petitioner mentioned thetotal extent of the property in the schedule of properties as1,121 sq. ft. in which the sales bunk comprising an extent of 8' X8' = 64 sq. ft. and a tea stall comprising an extent of 8' X 8' =64 sq. ft. and the remaining vacant site to an extent of 993 sq.ft; 8.8. However, the appellant/writ petitioner did notsubstantiate his case with regard to the remaining portion of thevacant land, other than the sales bunk having an extent of 8' X 8'= 64 sq. ft. to which allotment was made to him by way of lease;but, the same is not under challenge in the writ petition; 8.9. The respondents also contended before the lower Courtthat the appellant/writ petitioner was allotted only 64 sq. ft ofthe Sales Bunk and the lower Court refused to go into that aspectand dealt with the matter relating to the order of injunctiongranted by the Court; 8.10. What is challenged by the appellant/writ petitioner isonly the termination order/notice dated 11.03.2009 and the learnedJudge has found that the impugned termination order/notice isperfectly in order and rejected the contention of theappellant/writ petitioner to quash the same.

9. This Court, on an independent application of mind to thematerials placed before this Court, is of the considered view thatthe allotment order granted in favour of the appellant/writpetitioner is valid for one year and it has to be renewed everyyear and the last of such renewal is in the year 2005 andthereafter, there was no extension of lease in respect of the saidSales Bunk. In the absence of any valid material to substantiatehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner that the impugnedtermination order/notice dated 11.03.2009 is untenable, thelearned Judge rightly found that the writ petition is not

maintainable and accordingly, dismissed the same. When there is noextension of lease period for more than four years, theappellant/writ petitioner could not make a challenge by way of awrit petition, impugning the termination notice/order dated11.03.2009 and the action taken by the respondents for evictingthe appellant/writ petitioner cannot be faulted with.

10. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and the same isdismissed, however, without costs. Consequently, the connectedcivil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(AS)

/True copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

To1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited, TANTEA Complex, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District.2.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited, TANTEA Complex, Coonoor, The Nilgiris District.

RsbCSL/PM-PN/01.02.2017 : 4P/3C

W.A(MD)No.1652 of 2016

and

C.M.P(MD)No.12519 of 201629.12.2016