IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated  30.06.2011

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

Writ Petition No.12488 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011


J.Thangaiah		                       	... Petitioner

Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu
   rep. By its Secretary,
   Local Administration Department,
   Fort St. George,
   Chennai 600 009.

2.The Executive Officer,
   Maduravoyal- II, Grade Municipality
   Maduravoyal,
   Chennai 600 095.                         	... Respondents



	Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in R.O.C.No.231 of 2009, dated 11.05.2011, to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to run the private fish market at Survey No.222/3 (25 cent) and 222/1B (34.5 cent), Mettukuppam Road, Alambakkam Main Road, Chennai 600 095 and pass such suitable orders.

		For petitioner               :   Mr.Vijaya Narayananm,
						Senior Counsel,
						for Mr. R.Parthiban

		For respondent-1          :   Ms. V.M.Velumani, Spl.G.P.

		For respondent-2	      :   Mr. R.Rajkumar

-----  

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in his proceedings in R.O.C.No.231 of 2009, dated 11.05.2011, to quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to run the private fish market at Survey No.222/3 (25 cent) and 222/1B (34.5 cent), Mettukuppam Road, Alambakkam Main Road, Chennai 600 095 and pass such suitable orders.

2. The petitioner has sought for permission from the second respondent to run a fish market which was rejected by the impugned proceedings and that is under challenge. The petitioner contends that he has sufficient materials and records to show that his application has been wrongly rejected by the authority. The rejection is based on irrelevant materials and failure to consider relevant material and hence the order under challenge is bad.

3. In the impugned proceedings, certain deficiencies have been pointed out in paragraph 9 of the impugned proceedings. It is stated that the building is an unauthorised construction, without planning permission and there is no valid licence under the Prevention of Water and Air Pollution Act and therefore, the licence cannot be considered.

4. The plea of the petitioner is that irrelevant issues have been considered while rejecting the application. The petitioner's claim was not considered properly as all the required documents to support his claim for grant of licence is available. In the above factual scenario, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner informs the court that the petitioner without reference to the earlier order passed, is willing to submit the records to the second respondent once again, so as to enable the authority to consider the claim for grant of licence, without reference to the earlier order passed.

5. Heard Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.R.Rajakumar, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

6. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein they have reiterated the stand taken in the impugned proceedings.

7. The plea of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner to submit to the competent authority all the records required for grant of licence either in terms of Section 262 or 269 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, is justified as subsequent events and changed circumstances can give rise to a cause of action for claiming the relief afresh. The rejection of application will not be a bar to the authority to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law afresh.

8. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner, the relief sought for in the writ petition to quash the impugned proceedings is declined. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to resubmit his application for grant of licence either in terms of Section 267 or Section 269 of the Act and the authority shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, from the date of submitting the application. It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

9. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

smi/ts To

1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Local Administration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Executive Officer, Maduravoyal- II, Grade Municipality Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095