IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04/10/2002
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
W.P.NO. 21619 OF 2002
and
W.P.M.P.NO.29908 OF 2002
M/s. Evergreen Suppliers
No.9 C.N.K. ROAD,
Chennai 5.
Rep. by its Chief Supervisor .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Commissioner,
Thiruvottiyur Municipality,
Chennai 19.
2. M/s. Arcadia Shipping and
Trading Company,
27, Ennore Express Road,
Thiruvatriyur, Chennai 19. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : M/s. Gupta & Ravi
For Respondents 1 : Mr.V. Subbarayan
:J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has prayed for issuing Writ of Mandamus
directing the first respondent to release the lorries bearing Registration
Nos. TN-07 Z 6694 and TN-07 Z 6696 and the crane owned by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business
of stevedoring, transportation, loading and unloading materials pertaining to
various third parties. It has been alleged that the petitioner has entered
into such an agreement with the respondent No.2. For the aforesaid purpose of
transportation, etc., it is necessary for the petitioner to utilise his own
lorries and other machineries such as cranes. During March 2002, two of the
lorries and a crane belonging to the petitioner were stationed at the premises
belonging to the respondent No.1, but rented out to others. The aforesaid
premises was sealed by the first respondent on the ground that the dues of the
first respondent had not been paid. When the petitioner came to know about
the aforesaid sealing of the premises, wherein his two lorries and a crane had
been stationed, a written representation was filed before the first respondent
for release of the aforesaid properties. However, since no action was taken,
the present writ petition has been filed.
3. It has been submitted that even assuming that the second
respondent or any other person or authorities had failed to pay some dues of
the first respondent, and the first respondent has right to seal the premises,
the properties belonging to third parties like the petitioner cannot be
retained by the first respondent and as such there should be a direction for
return of those articles.
4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent
No.1. It has been submitted that the disputed area had been leased out to
Hindustan Container Terminal and the premises had been sublet by Hindustan
Container Terminal to various sub-lessees, including the respondent No.2. It
has been further submitted that many such sub-lessees have been asked to pay
the dues. The first respondent had placed reliance upon the provisions
contained in Sections 340 to 346 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Act,
1920 in support of the contention that the respondent No.1 has legal authority
to seal the premises including the properties standing on such premises.
5. The provisions contained in Sections 340 t 346 do not
prescribe anywhere that the properties belonging to third parties can be
sealed or seized in the purported exercise of authority under those provisions
from the original lessee or even the sub-lessees. In the present case, there
is no specific assertion that two lorries and the crane in question do not
belong to the present petitioner nor there is any denial that the petitioner
has entered into some agreement with the respondent No.2. It is not the case
of the respondent No.1 that the present petitioner is a sub-lessee under
Hindustan Container Terminal. Whatever may be the justification on the part
of the respondent No.1 to seal the premises let out by it and seize the
properties of the original lessee or even the sub-lessees, there is no
justification to seize the properties belonging to third parties and the so
called lien in respect of the property of the lessee or sub-lessee by no
stretch of imagination can extended to the properties belonging to such third
parties.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has
submitted that the sub-lessees have not been paying the amount to the lessee
Hindustan Container Terminal and therefore, the lessee has defaulted in making
payment to the first respondent. This logic cannot extend to the persons who
happen to be using the premises by virtue of some other agreements.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow the writ petition and
direct the respondent No.1 to forthwith release the lorries bearing
Registration Nos.TN-07 Z 6694 and TN-07 z 6696 and the crane in question to
the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a consolidated
costs of Rs.2,000/-. The order regarding release of properties should be
carried out within a period of ten days from the date of communication of the
order. Consequently, WPMP.No.29908 of 2002 is closed.
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The Commissioner,
Thiruvottiyur Municipality,
Chennai 19.
2. M/s. Arcadia Shipping and
Trading Company,
27, Ennore Express Road,
Thiruvatriyur, Chennai 19.
P.K. MISRA, J.
JUDGMENT IN WP.No.21619/2002
and WPMP.No.29908 OF 2002