Madras Tomato Commission Merchants Association Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. Of 1987.
(Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7753/1986.)
(Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7753/1986.)
Petitioner: Madras Tomato Commission Merchants Association
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. Of 1987.
(Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7753/1986.)
(Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7753/1986.)
Judges: M.P. THAKKAR & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 03, 1987
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:
Art. 136 – Tomato merchants sought to be shifted from the place of their business – They are to be offered sites at concessional price and make payment in instalment.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted. Heard both sides.
2. A formula for resolving the problems was suggested by us on the last occasion in our order dated February 16, 1987 regarding as under:-
“A tentative formula which both the sides may consider is that the petitioner (1100 to 1200 in number) who are already carrying on their business and who are sought to be shifted should be given a weightage in the following manner:-
1.10 Per cent concession in price should be given to them as compared to the price at which the sites are offered to others.
2.The petitioners will be given two years more in order to pay the instalments. In other words, the payment will be spread over for a period which is two years longer than the period offered to others.”
It has now been accepted by both the sides. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal in the light of the affidavit dated in the light of the affidavit dated 24-02-1987 filed by the Second Respondent accompanied by the Minutes dated 21-02-1987. The traders who were bonafide occupying the accommodation at the time of institution of the Writ Petition (subject to their bonafides being scrutinized) will be entitled to the concessions which have been indicated in our aforesaid order dated February 16, 1987, read with the affidavit of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the maintenance charges rather on the high side. It will be open to the appellants to persuade and satisfy the concerned respondent that the maintenance charges are not commensurate with the services to be rendered. It is not for us to determine this question because it is beyond the purview of the present matter. In view of the solution which has been found acceptable by both sides, the appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. The interim order passed by this Court will stand vacated.
1. Special leave granted. Heard both sides.
2. A formula for resolving the problems was suggested by us on the last occasion in our order dated February 16, 1987 regarding as under:-
“A tentative formula which both the sides may consider is that the petitioner (1100 to 1200 in number) who are already carrying on their business and who are sought to be shifted should be given a weightage in the following manner:-
1.10 Per cent concession in price should be given to them as compared to the price at which the sites are offered to others.
2.The petitioners will be given two years more in order to pay the instalments. In other words, the payment will be spread over for a period which is two years longer than the period offered to others.”
It has now been accepted by both the sides. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal in the light of the affidavit dated in the light of the affidavit dated 24-02-1987 filed by the Second Respondent accompanied by the Minutes dated 21-02-1987. The traders who were bonafide occupying the accommodation at the time of institution of the Writ Petition (subject to their bonafides being scrutinized) will be entitled to the concessions which have been indicated in our aforesaid order dated February 16, 1987, read with the affidavit of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the maintenance charges rather on the high side. It will be open to the appellants to persuade and satisfy the concerned respondent that the maintenance charges are not commensurate with the services to be rendered. It is not for us to determine this question because it is beyond the purview of the present matter. In view of the solution which has been found acceptable by both sides, the appeal will stand disposed of accordingly. The interim order passed by this Court will stand vacated.
