AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the
1st respondent as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent apart from the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
The petitioner, as the son of his father Arumugham Servai has filed the present writ petition, challenging the notification issued by the 2nd
respondent dated 07.04.2010, calling for Bar license to be issued for selling eatables and collecting empty bottles in respect of shop No. 7515,
situated at behind the new bus stand of Karaikudi. This Court, by an order dated 15.04.2010, has directed to maintain status-quo as on date. As
per the notification, the last date for receiving all applications is 27.04.2010 upto 5.00 p.m. and the opening of the tenders is on 28.04.2010 at
11.00 am.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even as on date, the said TASMAC shop is running in the said place viz., plot
No. 285, behind the new bus stand of Karaikudi. As it is seen from the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent,
the 3rd respondent is stated to have inherited the property from his father Subbiah Pillai, who in his turn has purchased the said property from the
father of the writ petitioner viz., Arumugam Servai under a registered sale deed executed on 28.12.1956.
It is seen that when the petitioner''s father has executed the sale deed in favour of the father of the third respondent herein, the petitioner was
aged about one year, being a Minor and as a guardian for him and another son, who also happened to be the minor, the petitioner''s father has
executed the sale deed as stated above on 28.12.1956. Based on the same, tax receipts and other revenue documents are transferred in the name
of the 3rd respondent herein and with his permission, the TASMAC shop No. 7515 has been running in the said premises.
The impugned notification for the purpose of Bar license came to be challenged by the petitioner without even impleading the said 3rd
respondent, who has now impleaded himself as 3rd respondent and the present writ petition came to be filed on the ground that the petitioner
herein is the owner of the property. Without even disclosing about the sale deed, which has been executed by the petitioner''s father in favour of
the 3rd respondent in 1956, stating that the 3rd respondent has obtained sale from his father and that sale should be treated as shame and nominal
transaction and on the basis that he has filed a suit in O.S. No. 23 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.
On a reference to the documents especially the sale deeds and other documents produced by the 3rd respondent herein, there is absolutely no
difficulty to come to a conclusion that the writ petitioner cannot claim any right over the property as on date unless and until the petitioner has
approached by filing a suit to declare the sale deed as shame and nominal before the the competent civil Court.
Inasmuch as, it is the competent civil court, which has to decide about the dispute between the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent, this
Court does not want to express any opinion on the merit of the subject matter except to say that prima-facie the petitioner as on date has no right
to maintain the writ petition, challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent TASMAC.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P(MD) No. 3269 of
2010 for direction against the District Collector to consider the representation dated 01.03.2010, this Court by an order dated 15.03.2010 has
directed the District Collector to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.03.2010 for the purpose of shifting the TASMAC shop
No. 7515 situated at behind the new bus stand of Karaikudi and to pass appropriate orders within a stipulated time. It is his submission that
pursuant to the same, the District Collector has already conducted an enquiry and he should be directed to pass orders.
In such view of the matter and having been satisfied prima-facie that the petitioner as on date has no right to oppose the notification issued by
the 2nd respondent, in my considered view, no useful purpose will be served by permitting the 1st and 2nd respondents to pass orders on the so-
called enquiry said to have been conducted by them as directed by this Court earlier and therefore, this writ petition stands dismissed with liberty
to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the notification for the purpose of lease of the Bar license for the above said shop.
It is made clear that the order passed in this writ petition shall not stand in the way of the civil Court in deciding the rights of the parties in the
suit in O.S. No. 23 of 2010 filed by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.