Sivajothi vs. The District Collector

Facts

The petitioner, Sivajothi, challenged an auction-cum-tender notification dated 11.08.2021 issued by the second respondent (Commissioner, Corporation of Thanjavur) for a shop at the New Bus Stand, Thanjavur. The petitioner claimed to be operating the shop under a license and had been remitting license fees periodically until December 2020. The challenge was based on the assertion that the petitioner was entitled to continue operating the shop as a licensee. The respondents contended that a license is revocable and the petitioner had failed to establish that his license remained in force, as the last payment of license fee was for December 2020. The auction-cum-tender was conducted on 01.09.2021, and the license was issued to one Mr. Ramesh for a higher monthly fee of Rs. 75,000/- + GST.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that his license to operate the shop remained in force. The only evidence presented was receipts for license fee payments, with the last payment being for December 2020. This was insufficient to demonstrate the continuation of a valid license. The Court acknowledged that while a license is revocable, the State must act non-discriminatorily and non-arbitrarily. However, in this instance, the petitioner did not prove his entitlement to continue as a licensee. Consequently, the second respondent was justified in proceeding with the auction-cum-tender process to grant a new license. The Court noted that the new license was granted to Mr. Ramesh at a significantly higher fee than what the petitioner was paying, indicating a potentially beneficial outcome for the Corporation. The Court dismissed the writ petition, but left it open for the petitioner to challenge the grant of the new license to Mr. Ramesh in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has established that his license to operate the shop at the New Bus Stand, Thanjavur, remains in force, thereby entitling him to continue operating the shop and challenging the auction-cum-tender notification issued by the second respondent. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he was operating the shop under a valid license and had been remitting license fees until December 2020, implying a right to continue his operation. The challenge was based on the premise that the auction-cum-tender was an arbitrary action that disregarded his existing license. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the State counsel and the Standing Counsel for the Corporation, argued that a license is inherently revocable. They contended that the petitioner failed to prove the subsistence of his license beyond December 2020, as evidenced by the last payment of license fees. Therefore, the Corporation was within its rights to conduct an auction-cum-tender for granting a new license.