Senkuttuvan T vs. The General Manager

Facts

The petitioner, T. Senkuttuvan, was granted a three-year license for a two-wheeler parking space at Thanjavur Old Bus Stand from August 1, 2018, to August 31, 2021. He remitted Rs. 33,000/- plus GST, an advance license amount of Rs. 1,98,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- for electricity charges, Rs. 25,000/- as a deposit, and furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, the bus stand was closed within two months of the contract award due to the Smart City Project, preventing the petitioner from earning income. The respondent issued a communication dated July 14, 2021, informing the petitioner that the license would expire on August 31, 2021, and directing him to hand over the premises. The petitioner sought an extension of the license, which was not granted. He filed a writ petition challenging the communication and seeking an extension.

Held

The Court held that the respondent cannot be faulted for issuing the communication dated July 14, 2021, as the license period was indeed scheduled to end on August 31, 2021. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the closure of the bus stand due to the Smart City Project within two months of the contract award might have affected his income. However, it emphasized that any decision regarding an extension must be a policy decision applied uniformly to all licensees, reflecting transparency and non-discrimination by the State Transport Corporation. The Court found that the petitioner had not made out a case to interfere with the impugned communication. Nevertheless, it directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation for extension, citing the bus stand closure, within one week. The respondent was directed to consider this representation, taking into account the Court's observations, and dispose of it with a reasoned order within 30 days of receipt.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned communication dated 14.07.2021, directing the petitioner to hand over the premises upon expiry of the license period on 31.08.2021, is arbitrary and illegal, considering the petitioner's contention that the bus stand was closed shortly after the license was granted, impacting his ability to generate income. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the closure of the bus stand within two months of the license award significantly affected his business, and therefore, the respondent should not fault him for the impending expiry of the license. He sought an extension of the license period. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by its Standing Counsel, argued that the impugned communication was issued because the license period admittedly ends on 31.08.2021, and therefore, the communication does not suffer from any infirmity. Without prejudice, the respondent stated that the petitioner's representation for an extension would be considered and disposed of on merits.