M. Mohamed Akbar vs. The Senior Divisional Commerical Manager

Facts

The petitioner, M. Mohamed Akbar, was awarded a contract to run a Vegetarian Refreshment Room (VRR) Unit at Vilupuram Station. A fresh agreement was entered into on August 17, 2017. The petitioner alleges that his stall was unlawfully closed between November 12, 2017, and December 17, 2017, during which period he claims to have suffered losses. While his license period, which ended in March 2020, was cut short by eight days due to COVID-19 and compensation was provided for this period, the petitioner sought either a refund of license fees for the earlier closure period or an extension of his license by 30 days. This request was rejected by the second respondent through an order dated July 21, 2020, which is now under challenge.

Held

The Court held that there was a factual controversy regarding the petitioner's claim of unlawful closure and the resulting losses. The Court found that the petitioner's version of events could not be established without conducting an inquiry and adducing evidence. Since writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for such factual adjudication, the Court declined to grant relief. The Court explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated the petitioner's rights and left them open to be pursued in the manner known to law. The impugned communication was not quashed, and the petitioner's request for a refund or extension was denied in the writ proceedings. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of license fee or an extension of his license period for the alleged unlawful closure of his VRR Unit between November 12, 2017, and December 17, 2017, under the terms of the agreement and relevant GST provisions. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he suffered significant losses due to the unlawful closure and sought compensation in the form of a refund of license fees or a 30-day extension of his license. The petitioner reiterated all contentions made in his affidavit. Respondents' contentions: The respondents contested the petitioner's version of events, asserting that there was a factual controversy requiring evidence to be let in. They contended that the petitioner's claims could not be established without an inquiry and the adduction of evidence, which is not permissible in writ jurisdiction.