(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in O.Mu.No.256/Thi.Va/2009 dated 15.02.2012, on the file of the Respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the Respondent No.2 to grant permission for the allotment of kiosk/coffee shop under the NAESEY Scheme in the campus of Government Hospital, Virudhunagar within the time frame stipulated by this Court.)
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to impugned order in O.Mu.No.256/Thi.Va/2009 dated 15.02.2012 on the file of the respondent No. 3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent No. 2 to grant permission for the allotment of kiosk/coffee.
2. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner s application praying for the allotment of Kiosk/Coffee shop in the Government hospital premises was rejected by holding that the application of the petitioner is not feasible for consideration during the pendency of the writ petition in W.P.No.10002/2007.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of kiosk shop located in the government hospital complex in Virudhunagar. By executing a written agreement dated 10.02.1989, with one Regunathan, he is venting snacks, tea, coffee kiosk in the Government hospital in Virudhunagar. The petitioner being a member of (NAESEY) claimed for allotment of place for-re location of his shop in the light of the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. Civil No.20689 dated 24.12.1993, whereby direction was given by the Hon ble Apex Court to consider the representation received from educated person for re-location of their Kiosks without delay. In the light of the above said order made by the Hon ble Apex Court the respondents have already re-located many kiosks of NAESEY members in Virudhunagar District. However, despite of submission of all the relevant documents, besides possessing all the requirements and having submitted the records before the respondents herein, the 3rd respondent has not at all considered the claim of the petitioner in proper prospect and has rejected the petitioner s claim. The said order is impugned herein.
4. The respondents contended that the petitioner in the above writ petition is not a valid license holder and he is also not a member of NAESEY. Originally one Mr.Paulraj, the brother of the petitioner is a member of NAESEY and only he was allotted with a Kiosks shop, wherein the petitioner continued to run Kiosk shop in the premises of Government Hospital at Virudhunagar. The petitioner cannot be allotted with a new shop in the Government Hospital premises, since presently one another person namely Stephen Abraham is running a shop therein and they sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. I heard Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Aayiram K.Selva Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6. From the averments made by the petitioner as well as from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein is running a Kiosks shop within the premise of Government Hospital at Virudhunagar. Further, it is averred by the petitioner that his family entirely rely upon the income from the above said shop, being the only source of income. It was further contented by the respondents, that the petitioner s application is liable to be rejected and he is liable to be evicted in the light of the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.59 Health and Family welfare department dated 20.03.2003. At this juncture, it is to be noted that Our Hon ble Apex Court on taking account of the hardship faced by those affected shop keepers, has directed the official/competent authorities to consider such shopkeepers and relocate them.
7. In such circumstances, it is admitted by the either side that the petitioner is running a Kiosk shop of his brother. But the petitioner was not issued with any license. Even though I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, taking into consideration of the above said fact that the petitioner is running a Kiosk shop, the petitioner is directed to send a detail representation to the 3rd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner by giving personal opportunity to the petitioner and to pass appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law within a period 8 weeks thereafter from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner.
8. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No cost.