SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 26th July, 2018 passed by the Designated Officer, South Andaman District being annexure P 12 to the writ petition. By the order impugned the Designated Officer being respondent No.3 herein in exercise of his power under section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has cancelled with immediate effect the licence vide No. 12915101000499 dated 29th July 2015 issued in favour of Shri. Suman Saha, S/o Late Sambu Nath Saha, Proprietor M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall situated at Junglighat, Port Blair. It is the petitioner's case that he is carrying on a business of bake house and sweet stall at Junglighat under the name and style "M/s Calcutta Sweet Stall". In order to run such business the writ petitioner obtained license under Food Safety Act, 2006 and the licensing authority issued a licence on 29th July, 2015. The license was for a period from 29th July, 2015 to 28th July, 2020. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the license at page 24 of the writ petition (Annexure P 1) which shows "This license is valid from 29th July 2015 to 28th July 2020." In order to establish the said business the petitioner hired a room from its recorded owner on monthly rental basis which stands on survey No. 901/2 measuring an area of 77.50 sq.mtr. situated at Junglighat village under Port Blair Tehsil, District of South Andaman. A tenancy agreement was executed by and between one M. Hamid in his capacity as landlord and the writ petitioner being tenant therein. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that on the strength of the said tenancy agreement and the tenancy created thereunder in respect of the premises in question, the writ petitioner was granted license by the authority concerned and the said tenancy was for a limited period as mentioned in said agreement but contains a clause that the same may be extended and or terminated mutually by the parties. It is further specific case of the writ petitioner that after the schedule time limit the landlord renewed the tenancy by accepting rent from the tenant every month and the petitioner is carrying on business in the said premises. Such rent is being paid by tenant to his landlord through account payee cheques and the landlord has encashed such cheques in order to accept the monthly rental. To substantiate such statement the petitioner has annexed a receipt issued by his landlord for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- though in the petition it has been mentioned Rs. 8,00,000/- as security deposit and he has annexed statement of account for the period from 1st January, 2017 to 31st March, 2017, 16th February, 2017 to 30th April, 2017, 30th November, 2017 to 27th December, 2017 and 13th July, 2018 to 3rd August, 2018 to show that he paid rent to his landlord for the tenancy months; he also paid electricity charges for the said premises.
(2.) On 1st December, 2017 an order was passed by Joint Commissioner (FS) Adjudicating Officer, South Andaman District vide memo being F.No.SA/LIC/2015/536 where-from it appears that a complaint was made by the added respondent to the effect that the licensing authority illegally issued the license dated 29th July, 2015 in favour of the petitioner with the validity up to 28th July, 2020 to conduct business of bake house and the sweet stall in the name and style of "M/s The Calcutta Sweet Stall", Junglighat, Port Blair. In the said order it has been mentioned that both parties were heard and documents submitted by Shri. Suman Saha showing that he had a tenancy agreement in respect of the premises wherefrom he is running the business, was to expire on 14th March, 2016 and the landlord has entered into a new agreement with the added respondent, who on the basis thereof applied for a new license. According to the said Joint Commissioner two licenses cannot be given to a single shop in favour of two persons, and on expiry of tenancy agreement, the license which was issued on 29th July, 2015, has been cancelled with immediate effect. Writ petition discloses that after such complaint was made, the petitioner challenged the said order in a writ petition being WP No. 447 of 2017 and the order was set aside by this Hon'ble Court holding that the impugned order was without jurisdiction. While disposing of the said writ petition this court on the earlier occasion directed the Designated Officer to take a fresh decision in the matter uninfluenced by anything in the order impugned which was set aside. The Designated Officer was directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other concerned parties as the officer might deem necessary and was directed to take a reasoned decision within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order. However, the Designated Officer and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the premises in question. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 8th December, 2017 the writ petitioner filed a civil suit being OS No. 106 of 2017 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Port Blair. The added respondent is a party defendant in the said suit. Time to time parties were heard, and, ultimately, the Civil Court passed an order on 29th December, 2017 disposing of temporary injunction application of the plaintiff holding, inter alia, that although the defendant No.2 challenged each and every documents of the plaintiff, but the matter requires to be decided on full-fledged trial. The learned Court also observed that "admittedly the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property. The Court is under obligation to protect the possession. At this stage the nature of possession can't be determined.
(3.) So, the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property should be protected by passing temporary injunction order.;