JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner has filed this writ application, inter alia, praying for issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to carry on his business of tuck shop pursuant to the agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. A copy of the said agreement has been produced before this Court. The petitioner was permitted to run a Tuck Shop on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In 3 terms of the aforementioned agreement, the price of the articles which are to be sold had been fixed. Clause 13 of the said agreement states that in the matters of dispute the Principal's decision will be final and binding on the contractor. In terms of Clause 3 of the said agreement the petitioner was prohibited from making any permanent structure even at his cost except with the written approval of the Principal. On or about 27-9-1994 a Circular was issued calling upon the members of the staff to give their opinion in writing as to the opening of a Tuck Shop in the school campus. The said circular is contained in annexure 'A' to the writ application and only thereafter upon a resolution having been passed by the members of the Managing Committee the aforementioned agreement was entered into on 1-1-1995 and pursuant thereto the petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs. 160/- per month as well as electrical charges at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and water charges at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The petitioner contends that he had constructed the shop in question on the basis of a plan prepared by the Principal which has been denied and disputed by the respondents. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition it has been stated that the petitioner was made certain renovation. On 4-7-1996 certain allegations were made as against the petitioner and by an order dated 17-7-1996 the petitioner was asked to vacate the shop room within 19-7-1996 inter alia upon complaint that he had been selling hard drinks mixed with soft drinks to the students. Allegedly the petitioner refused to accept the said notice and the same was pasted on the door of the shop room, Allegedly on 2-8-1996 an order was passed by the respondent No. 2 directing that P. M. Reddy who is a Chowkidar of Refrigeration section should not sit in the tuck shop as he is an unauthorised person. The said letter is contained in Annexure 'A' to the affidavit-in-reply. It has further been stated that despite the purported termination of the tenancy, the respondent No. 2 purchased soft drinks from the aforementioned shop. However on 13-8-1996 on instruction of the respondent No. 2 the military and Police authority removed most of the articles including the Books. In the affidavit-in-opposition the respondent No. 2 has clearly stated that the complaints were being received from the students and guardians to the effect that the petitioner has been selling liquor mixing soft drinks and obscene pictures. It has further been stated that since the said shop room or the Tuck shop became a centre for anti-social activities of the writ petitioner, the police authority vacated the premises in question.
(2.)An application for intervention has been filed on behalf of some guardians of the Wards wherein various allegation has been against the petitioner.
(3.)Keeping in view the point involved in this application, both the main writ application as well as the application for intervention are taken up for hearing together.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.