2025 (1) TMI 1088 - HC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of the rent/licence fee from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 50/- per day for the petitioner a fruit vendor - enhancement is discriminatory compared to other vendors in the locality or not - HELD THAT - This court is not in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents for the reasons that when the petitioner obtained the permission for selling of fruit vend at the space in question the rent was being charged at Rs. 20/- per day since January 2016. The same has been enhanced to Rs. 50/- per day within a span of one year and it is this enhancement which the petitioner s claim to be discriminatory as the same amounts to the petitioner s paying an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month whereas others are being levied lesser rent/licence fee. The fact that the petitioner is a fruit vendor is not a relevant consideration to subject the petitioner to such discriminatory treatment. All other vendors in the same locality as per the public notice dated 27.03.2017 are vendors of similar consumable items with reference to whom he is claiming discriminatory treatment - The Court finds the levy to be shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory. Such arbitrary demand is thus found to be unsustainable. The levy of Rs. 50/- per day is clearly unsustainable since other vendors have been charged much less than Rs. 1500/- per month i.e. Rs. 1000/- per month or Rs. 800/- per month. In view of the shocking disparity as evident from the public notice dated 27.03.2017 this Court finds that the determination of rent for the petitioner at Rs. 50/- per day is clearly unsustainable. This Court directs the respondent no.2 to take a final decision on the petitioner s claim as contained in annexure P-7 to the writ petition taking into consideration the observations made. Conclusion - The rent enhancement was discriminatory and arbitrary. The municipal authority is directed to reconsider the petitioner s claim for parity and determine rent based on relevant parameters. Petition disposed off.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the enhancement of the rent/licence fee from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 50/- per day for the petitioner, a fruit vendor, is discriminatory compared to other vendors in the locality.
Whether the petitioner can be subjected to a higher rent/licence fee based on the nature of his vending activity, i.e., selling fruits.
Whether the determination of rent/licence fee by the municipal authority is arbitrary and unsustainable.
What parameters should be considered by the municipal authority in determining the rent/licence fee for vendors?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Discriminatory Rent Enhancement

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered principles of non-discrimination and fairness in administrative actions. The municipal authority's power to levy fees must be exercised reasonably and without arbitrariness.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found the rent enhancement from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 50/- per day within a year to be shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory. It noted that other vendors in the locality were charged significantly less.
Key evidence and findings: The court referred to the public notice dated 27.03.2017, which highlighted the disparity in rent charged to different vendors.
Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of equality and non-discrimination, concluding that the petitioner was unfairly treated compared to other vendors.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that the petitioner accepted the terms was rejected. The court emphasized that acceptance of terms does not preclude challenging discriminatory practices.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the rent enhancement was unsustainable and directed the municipal authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim for parity.

Issue 2: Nature of Vending Activity

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the principle that similar activities should be treated similarly unless a valid distinction justifies differential treatment.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court rejected the argument that the nature of the petitioner's vending activity (selling fruits) justified higher rent. It emphasized that all vendors of similar consumable items should be treated equally.
Key evidence and findings: The court noted the lack of a valid basis for distinguishing between fruit vendors and other vendors like fish and vegetable sellers.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle of equality, finding no justification for differential treatment based on the type of goods sold.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the respondent's argument that the petitioner's acceptance of terms precluded challenging them.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the nature of the vending activity was not a relevant consideration for imposing higher rent.

Issue 3: Arbitrary Determination of Rent

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the requirement for administrative decisions to be reasonable and based on relevant considerations.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found the rent determination process arbitrary, lacking consideration of relevant factors like prevailing rent for similar spaces.
Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted the stark disparity in rent charges as evidence of arbitrariness.
Application of law to facts: The court applied principles of administrative fairness, concluding that the rent determination was not based on relevant parameters.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court rejected the respondent's argument that the petitioner was bound by the terms of allotment.
Conclusions: The court directed the municipal authority to reconsider the rent determination, taking into account relevant parameters.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The levy to be shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory. Such arbitrary demand is thus found to be unsustainable."
Core principles established: The court reinforced the principles of non-discrimination and fairness in administrative decisions, emphasizing that similar activities should be treated equally unless a valid distinction exists.
Final determinations on each issue: The court concluded that the rent enhancement was discriminatory and arbitrary. It directed the municipal authority to reconsider the petitioner's claim for parity and determine rent based on relevant parameters.

The court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge the Chairman's decision if unsatisfied. The petitioner was not required to pay further rent until a decision was made, considering the Rs. 1.00 lakh already deposited.

← Previous Next →