@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Raja, J.@mdashTotally five writ petitions have been filed in respect of the godown bearing No. G-88 situate at Periyar Vegetable Market, Koyambedu wholesale market complex, Chennai, out of which three writ petitions have been filed by Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam (Registration No. 282/98) represented by its Secretary Mr. S.R.M. Jayaraman, namely, (i) Writ Petition No. 11054 of 2014 challenging the impugned letter bearing No. K2/9228/2003 dated 28.3.2014 directing the petitioner to clear the rental arrears from 10.11.99 to 15.4.14 worked out to Rs. 84,90,786/- with outstanding interest together with 12.36% service tax and maintenance charges of Rs. 1/- per sq.ft., on or before 15.4.14, failing which eviction would be carried out without any further notice; (ii) Writ Petition No. 25199 of 2014 challenging the impugned proceedings dated 18.8.2014 dissolving the petitioner sangam as per Section 44(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, on the ground that the respondents have not followed the due process of law for declaring the petitioner as defunct without considering the representation dated 7.8.2014; and (iii) Writ Petition No. 14776 of 2015 challenging the impugned order dated 13.5.2015 in Letter No. K2/9228/2003 proposing to carry out the eviction on 15.5.2015 at 11.00 AM, since the petitioner has not complied with the order passed by this Court in M.P. No. 1 of 2014 in W.P. No. 11054 of 2014 dated 17.4.2014 in full, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month continuously till the disposal of the writ petition, whereas the petitioner has remitted only a sum of Rs. 37,000/-per month instead of Rs. 50,000/- per month, consequently, the impugned order requested the Assistant Commissioner of Police to instruct the Koyambedu Police Station to provide the necessary police protection to carry out the eviction.
2. Writ Petition No. 15373 of 2015 has been filed by Mr. A. Chinnadurai, Mr. P. Jayamoorthy and Mr. H. Gokul Raj challenging a portion of the impugned order dated 13.5.2015, to quash the same with a further direction to de-seal the premises in G-88/1, G-88/2 and G-88/7, Periyar Vegetable Market, Koyambedu wholesale market complex, Chennai.
3. Writ Petition No. 19706 of 2015 has been filed by Mr. P. Sathaiya seeking a mandamus directing the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Chief Administrative Officer, Market Management Committee, Koyambedu Wholesale Market complex, the respondents herein to consider his representation dated 19.5.2015 for allotment of shops by conversion of the godown G-88 into shops forthwith on merits.
4. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
5. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam in the first three writ petitions submitted that the petitioner sangam, having paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money deposit while applying for allotment of godown No. G-88 on 31.10.99 and the remaining sum of Rs. 3,98,368/- as per the communication dated 3.11.99, took over possession of the said godown and the members of the sangam were using the same for loading and unloading of vegetables. Adding further, the learned senior counsel submitted that when this godown is meant purely for its members, the respondent-CMDA attempted to allot the same to third parties who are not members of the sangam, as a result, the president of the sangam sent a representation to the Member Secretary, CMDA and the Chief Administrative Officer, Market Management Committee, Koyambedu Wholesale Market, the respondents herein requesting them not to allot the same to any third parties who are not members of the sangam. However, ignoring the said representation, since the respondents were attempting to allot the godown to several third parties, Writ Petition No. 10950 of 2004 was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 5.4.2004 and not to allot the said godown to third parties or to any person who are not members. This Court, by order dated 22.5.2004, directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 5.4.2004. However, the second respondent-Chief Administrative Officer, Market Management Committee by his proceedings dated 3.3.2004 directed one Mr. Ramesh Babu to pay a sum of Rs. 79,984/- as rent for running the shop in a portion of the godown G-88. Being so, the said Ramesh Babu, who is not a member of the sangam also approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 23882 of 2004, challenging the order dated 3.3.2004 to quash the same with a further direction to the second respondent to accept the monthly rent and arrears alleged to be used by him. Similarly, one Mr. K. Sampath and Mr. K. Shanker also filed Writ Petition Nos. 14233 and 14234 of 2004 for a mandamus directing the second respondent to accept the monthly rent and arrears as demanded by the second respondent in letter dated 3.3.2004. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the communication dated 3.3.2004, the petitioner sangam also filed another Writ Petition No. 12075 of 2005 before this Court. However, the writ petitions filed by Mr. Ramesh Babu, Mr. K. Sampath and Mr. K.S. Sankar were withdrawn by them on 22.6.2012 & 29.1.2013 respectively. Finally the Writ Petition No. 12075 of 2005 filed by the petitioner was taken up and the order impugned therein dated 3.3.2004 was quashed giving liberty to the CMDA to make a demand to the petitioner sangam in respect of the rents payable to the godown and to initiate appropriate action against all those unauthorized occupants in the manner known to law. Subsequently, the first respondent passed a proceeding dated 28.3.2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 84,90,786/-, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 11054 of 2014. While considering the said writ petition, this Court by order dated 17.4.2014 in M.P. No. 1 of 2014 in W.P. No. 11054 of 2014, while granting an order of interim stay on condition of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, out of which Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid before 30.4.2014 and another sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 31.5.2014, failing which the interim order would stand automatically vacated, further directed the petitioner to pay continuously Rs. 50,000/- per month till the disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid on 28.4.2014. However, since the petitioner was having some difficulty in paying the second instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs and the monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-, M.P. Nos. 2 & 3 of 2014 were filed for modification and for extension of time. While keeping the M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 pending, this Court extended the time limit for payment of the second instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs by four weeks vide order dated 30.5.2014 in M.P. No. 3 of 2014. Pursuant thereto, the second instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs was also paid on 26.6.2014. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been paying the admitted sum of Rs. 37,446.50 per month as rent to the respondents, therefore, the respondents ought not to have passed the impugned order to evict the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make the payment in full as per the order dated 17.4.2014.
6. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel, requesting this Court to take up the Writ Petition No. 25199 of 2014 challenging the impugned order dated 18.8.2014 passed under Section 44(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, contended that without issuing notice under Section 44(1) by the Registrar, straightaway cannot pass the impugned order dissolving the affairs of the petitioner sangam under Section 44(4), for the simple reason that if the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a registered society has not carried on business, he shall send a letter by registered post enquiring whether the society is carrying on business or in operation. Subsequently, if there is no reply from the petitioner, then the Registrar can send a notice to the petitioner by registered post informing that the petitioner''s name would be struck off from the register and the society would be dissolved. Adding further the learned senior counsel submitted that in any case where a registered society has not for three consecutive financial years filed with the Registrar any of the documents referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 16, namely, the receipts and expenditure account and the balance sheet together with the report duly signed by the auditor and the members of the committee, the Registrar has to publish in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and send a copy of the notice thereof by registered post giving a specified period. Only on the expiry of the time mentioned in the notice, he can strike the petitioner''s name in the register and publish the notice thereof in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and only on the publication of such notice the petitioner''s society shall be deemed to be dissolved. Since these procedures have not been properly followed and all of a sudden the impugned proceeding dated 18.8.2014 has been issued under Section 44(4) of the Act, thereby depriving the society from working out its legal remedies, the impugned proceeding dated 18.8.2014 dissolving the society is liable to be quashed.
7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents urging this Court to dismiss all the writ petitions filed by Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam as not maintainable, since the petitioner sangam has no locus standi either to challenge the communication dated 13.5.2015 or the other two proceedings dated 28.3.2014 and 18.8.2014.
8. Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner sangam has no locus standi to challenge the impugned communication for the reason that when the godown G-88 was allotted on rental basis at the rate of Rs. 9.10 per sq.ft., by the allotment order No. KWMC/JE(c)/10/98 dated 3.11.99 for a period of eleven months, after taking possession of the godown on 10.11.99, the petitioner has unauthorisedly converted the godown into regular shops, which is not permissible in law, without prior permission whatsoever from the competent officers, therefore, the respondent-CMDA directed the petitioner sangam to restore the godown to its original condition by the letter dated 20.12.99. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 7484 of 2000 and obtained an order of injunction. When the suit was also decreed ex parte not to interfere with the physical possession of the petitioner, subsequently, the respondents had taken steps to file a civil revision petition. However, in the meantime, the petitioner sangam filed another Writ Petition No. 12075 of 2005 and this Court by order dated 31.1.2013 disposed of the said writ petition giving a direction to the respondents to issue a demand to the petitioner sangam in respect of the rents payable for the godown and on receipt of the same, the petitioner was directed to pay the rent demanded for the said godown. However, on account of the pending litigation initiated by Mr. R. Ramesh Babu before this Court, when some of the third parties have entered into the godown in question and continued to be in possession of a portion of the same, the respondent-CMDA thought it fit not to demand rent from the petitioner sangam as they were not in physical possession of a portion of the godown. This apart, more importantly, the petitioner sangam committed default in payment of a huge rental arrears. Since the petitioner was neither in occupation of the godown nor came forward to pay the monthly rent, finding that one Mr. Ramesh Babu has been in possession, the proceeding dated 3.3.2004 was issued calling upon the said Ramesh Babu to pay the rent for running the shop in a portion of the G-88 godown. When this was challenged by the petitioner sangam, this Court by order dated 31.1.2013 directed the respondents to receive the rent from the petitioner sangam including the arrears. In the light of the order dated 31.1.2013, the petitioner was informed to remit the rental arrears with 12.36% service tax and maintenance charge of Rs. 1/- per sq.ft., along with interest which has been worked out at Rs. 84,90,786/- for the period from 10.11.99 to 15.4.2014. The petitioner has once again challenged the same in Writ Petition No. 11054 of 2014 and this Court by order dated 17.4.2014 granted an interim order of stay on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs. 10 lakhs, out of which Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid before 30.4.2014 and another Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 31.5.2014, with a further direction to pay Rs. 50,000/- continuously per month till the disposal of the writ petition, failing which the interim order shall stand automatically vacated, has given a chance to the petitioner to pay the monthly rent. But the petitioner sangam has not even made use of the opportunity. Although the petitioner sangam had paid Rs. 5 lakhs on 28.4.2014, without paying another Rs. 5 lakhs, though sought for time for payment, once again this Court by order dated 30.5.2014 granted four more weeks to clear the second instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs. Ironically the petitioner till date has not even come forward to pay Rs. 50,000/- every month as directed by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the writ petitions, as he has not complied with the conditional order in full. Moreover, when the petitioner sangam is liable to pay Rs. 84,90,786/- which is the rental arrears for 16 long years along with interest and the interim order passed by this Court also has not been complied with, it is not open to the petitioner to maintain the writ petitions. Concluding his arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as on 27.5.2015, the petitioner has to pay Rs. 93,83,064/-. Without paying the said outstanding, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petitions. In view of the non payment of a huge amount, the respondents are put to grave prejudice of financial loss and also not able to let out the same to other parties who are prepared to pay the monthly rent.
9. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent in W.P. No. 25199 of 2014 also adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General.
10. Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 19706 of 2015 submitted that the Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam had become defunct way back in the year 2003 and the consequent dissolution of the society also came to be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 23.4.2014, the petitioner sangam is no longer in existence, therefore, there is no right whatsoever available to them to maintain the writ petitions. When the petitioner sangam offered the highest bid of Rs. 9.10 per sq.ft., for the godown which has an extent of 4115 sq.ft., after taking possession, the petitioner sangam wrongly converted the said godown into 10 shops and let them to various parties resulting in various litigation in the city Courts by the unauthorized occupants permitting them as tenants. Now in view of the fact that the petitioner sangam has failed to pay the rent and also not in physical possession, as it had become a defunct society, considering the admitted position that the godown was closed on 19.5.2015, the petitioner P. Sathaiya and others have given a representation for considering them for allotment of the said place giving an undertaking that they would make good the loss on such allotment being made in their favour. Since the respondents have failed to consider the legitimate request of the petitioner, he has come to this Court, therefore, a direction may be given to consider the petitioner''s representation dated 19.5.2015 seeking allotment of godown G-88 into shops so that both the petitioner P. Sathaiya and others on the one hand and the respondents on the other hand will be in a position to receive mutual benefits, namely, the respondents will be in a position to receive the monthly rent including the huge arrears payable by the Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam.
11. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15373 of 2015 viz., Mr. A. Chinnadurai, Mr. P. Jayamoorthy and H. Gokulraj submitted that the godown bearing No. G-88 was allotted to the Vegetable Vendors Welfare Association on 3.9.99 and in turn the said place has been leased out for godown purpose to all the three persons. Although they have been paying the rent to the Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam regularly, it appears that they have failed to pay the dues to the respondents, as a result, coercive steps were taken by the CMDA. Since this has affected the petitioners'' business, all the three persons approached the CMDA and offered to pay the rent directly. Considering the pitiable condition of the petitioners, the CMDA offered to recognise them as tenants and consequently issued the letter dated 24.3.2013 calling upon the occupants to pay the rent. On receipt of the same, the petitioners 1 & 2 are paying the rent at Rs. 6,000/- per month for which the first respondent has also issued the receipts indicating in clear terms that they are tenants, therefore, the tenancy of the occupants and their possession are clearly admitted by showing the name of the first petitioner against shop No. G-88/1. So far as the second and third petitioners are concerned, their names are shown against Shop Nos. G-88/2 and G-88/7 respectively by the letter dated 17.6.2013. In any event, since the Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam had become a defunct society and appropriate gazette publication has also been published on 23.4.2014, the said sangam is no longer in existence, therefore, the lease arrangement already entered into between the petitioners and the first respondent may be continued, since the rents are all being regularly collected from the petitioners. While so, the impugned order dated 13.5.2015 requesting the police personnel of K-10 police station of Koyambedu to provide protection to seal the premises of the godown G-88 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside, for the simple reason that the petitioners were all in occupation of the premises as tenants as confirmed by the CMDA as per the letter dated 17.6.2013. Besides, the petitioners are all eking out their livelihood from and out of the daily income derived from the petition premises. While so, if the sealing of the premises is not interfered with, all the petitioners will be rendered jobless, therefore the impugned order should be interfered with by directing the respondents to de-seal the premises in G-88/1, G-88/2 and G-88/7 in periyar vegetable market, Koyambedu, he pleaded.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
13. Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam was allotted a godown bearing No. G-88 measuring 4115 sq.ft., on rental basis at Rs. 9.10 per sq.ft., by the allotment order dated 3.11.99 in letter No. MMC/KWMC/JE(C)/10/99 for a period of eleven months. After taking physical possession of the said godown on 10.11.99, the affairs between the sangam and the respondents could not move smoothly, for it appears that the sangam had inducted some third parties by converting the godown into shops without prior permission from the competent officers. Secondly, when rents were not duly paid, the respondent-CMDA, on receipt of the monthly rent from some of the third parties who were subsequently inducted at the instance of the sangam, attempted to allot the above portion of the godown to third parties who are not members of the sangam, therefore, the petitioner sangam filed Writ Petition No. 12075 of 2005 challenging the proceedings dated 3.3.2004 issued by the Chief Administrative Officer, Market Managing Committee, Koyambedu wholesale market complex, in and by which one R. Ramesh Babu was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 79,984/- as rent for running the shop in a portion of G-88 godown. This Court, by order dated 31.1.2013, recording the statement made by the petitioner sangam that they were ready and willing to pay the rent including the arrears, directed the respondent-CMDA to receive the rent from the petitioner sangam including the arrears. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the rental arrears payable by the petitioner sangam from 10.11.99 to 15.4.2014 has been worked out to Rs. 84,90,786/- with interest and thereupon a letter bearing No. K2/9228/03 dated 28.3.2014 was issued by the Member Secretary and the Chief Administrative Officer in-charge of CMDA to the occupants of the godown bearing No. G-88 to pay the aforesaid amount, failing which eviction would be carried out without any further notice. The petitioner sangam filed W.P. No. 11054 of 2014 challenging this impugned order dated 28.3.2014. This Court, by order dated 17.4.2014 in M.P. No. 1 of 2014, passed an order granting stay subject to the condition to pay Rs. 10 lakhs, out of which Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid on or before 30.4.2014 and another Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 31.5.2014, failing which the interim order would stand automatically vacated. The said order reads as under:-
"There will be an interim stay on condition the petitioner pays Rs. 10 lacs, out of which Rs. 5 lacs to be paid before 30.4.2014 and another Rs. 5 lacs on or before 31.05.2014 failing which the interim order shall stand vacated automatically. The petitioner is also directed to pay continuously Rs. 50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month pending disposal of the writ petition. Notice."
14. It is seen that the petitioner has not complied with the abovesaid order in full, because the petitioner sangam had paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs only on 28.4.2014. However, the balance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and the further sum of Rs. 50,000/- per month continuously have not been paid as per the direction dated 17.4.2014, however, the petitioner sangam moved two miscellaneous petitions in W.P. No. 11054 of 2014 viz., M.P. No. 2 of 2014 to modify the condition imposed by this Court dated 17.4.2014 in M.P. No. 1 of 2014 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 30.4.2014 and another Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 31.5.2014 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month and M.P. No. 3 of 2014 to extend the time limit for payment of the second instalment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the first respondent for a period of eight weeks by modifying the order dated 17.4.2014. Surprisingly, the petitioner was again given extension of time to pay the second instalment of Rs. 5 lakhs by a further period of four weeks by order dated 30.5.2014. Although the petitioner was given extension of time for payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, ironically, after paying Rs. 5 lakhs on 26.6.2014, has failed to pay the monthly payment of Rs. 50,000/-, as a result, on its own whims and fancies, has been paying Rs. 37,444.50 instead of Rs. 50,000/- per month as ordered by the Court even without any modification of the earlier order. That shows that the order passed by this Court has been miserably violated. Therefore, this Court, sitting under Article 226, being a Court of equity, is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions filed by Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam, for the following reasons:-
(a) The petitioner sangam, on taking possession of the godown G-88 measuring 4115 sq.ft., on rental basis at Rs. 9.10 per sq.ft., vide order dated 3.11.99, has committed willful default in payment of rent for the period commencing from 10.11.99 to 27.5.2015;
(b) has been in huge arrears of Rs. 93,83,064/- as on 27.5.2015, even as against the direction issued by this Court on 17.4.2014 in M.P. No. 1 of 2014 in W.P. No. 11054 of 2014, without even asking for modification of the order, to its whims and fancies, paid Rs. 37,000/-as against the monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-;
(c) has committed yet another violation of the conditions mentioned in Section 44(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, has not filed with the Registrar any of the documents referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 16, i.e., (i) no authenticated copies of the receipts, expenditure account, balance sheet and report (ii) failed to declare that the society has been carrying on business or has been in operation during the financial year etc.; and
(d) has also failed to challenge the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 23.4.2014 dissolving the petitioner sangam from the register of the societies.
15. For all the aforementioned reasons, when the petitioner sangam, being a chronic defaulter, has approached this Court with unclean hands violating the order of this Court, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner and no fruitful purpose would also be served in entertaining the writ petitions. Accordingly, the three writ petitions filed by the Urimam Petra Kaikari Vyabarigal Podunala Sangam fail and they are dismissed.
16. In view of the above order, so far as the other two writ petitions filed by Mr. P. Sathaiya and Mr. A. Chinnadurai, Mr. P. Jayamoorthy, Mr. H. Gokulraj respectively are concerned, since they have filed representations dated 19.5.2015 and 29.5.2015 to consider their case for allotment of the godown in question as tenants, it is for the respondents to consider their claim in the manner known to law and this Court is not inclined to say anything on merits. With this observation, the other two writ petitions also shall stand disposed of. Consequently, the respective connected M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014 and 1 to 5 of 2015 are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
