BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/02/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.14489 of 2010 and W.P.(MD)No.14490 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,2,1 and 2 of 2010 M.Pappu ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.14489/2010 M.Manikandan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.14490/2010 Vs. Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Arignar Anna Maligai, Tallakulam, Madurai. ... Respondent in both W.Ps. Common Prayer Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned auction notification of the respondent in Ve.A.No.319/2010/Se.Ma.Tho.A/Madurai, dated 26.11.2010 published in Tamil daily Dhina Thanthi, dated 27.11.2010 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to allot a shop in favour of the petitioners in the newly constructed central market at Mattuthavani. !For Petitioners ... Mr.K.K.Senthil ^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Ravi Shankar ********
:COMMON ORDER
*********
The petitioners challenge the auction notification dated 26.11.2010
issued by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation and seek a consequential
direction to allot shops in their favour in the newly constructed Central Market
at Mattuthavani.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The petitioners were running vegetable shops as licensees under
the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. Their shops were located at Central
Market near Lord Meenakshi Ammal Temple. The Central Market was situated in a
very busy locality and as such, a decision was taken by the Corporation to shift
the vegetable market to Mattuthavani by providing alternative shops to the
existing licensees. The Corporation has passed a resolution to that effect on
22.04.2010.
3. The Corporation has taken a decision to provide the shops in the
newly constructed market at Mattuthavani and as per the said decision, the
existing licensees shall pay the additional advance amount ranging from
Rs.35,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- depending upon the area of the shop. The
respondent, as per proceedings dated 06.05.2010, allotted the shops to the
petitioners in the newly market complex and a direction was given to pay a sum
of Rs.60,000/- within a period of one week. The petitioners have paid the amount
on 02.07.2010. However, they were not allotted the shops. In the meantime, the
respondent published an auction notification proposing to auction the remaining
shops. This made the petitioners to challenge the auction notification.
4. The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was
stated that the petitioners have not deposited the amount within the time
stipulated and as such, they were not allotted the shops along with others.
According to the respondent, the petitioners were directed to pay the amount
within one week along with the required documents. However, for the reasons best
known to them, they have not deposited the money and it was only after
considerable time, they have fulfilled the conditions. By that time, shops were
allotted. The respondent further submitted that the Corporation is now taking
steps to construct new shops near the market and after such construction, shops
would be allotted to the petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
6. The petitioners were doing business earlier in the Central Market
as licensees under the Corporation. The Corporation has taken a decision to
shift the market to Mattuthavani, as the existing place was so inconvenient. The
Corporation has also taken a decision to allot the shops to the existing
licensees. The petitioners were directed as per proceedings dated 06.05.2010 to
deposit a sum of Rs.60,000/- within one week from the date of receipt of the
proceedings. The petitioners were further directed to produce documents, such
as, copy of the ration card and their photographs. It is not the case of the
petitioners that they have complied with the conditions indicated in the
proceedings dated 06.05.2010. The amount was deposited only on 02.07.2010. The
counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that the documents were not
submitted along with payment. When the petitioners have not complied with the
terms and conditions of the order of allotment, it cannot be said that the
respondent was at fault. The respondent has acted in the best possible manner by
accommodating the petitioners. However, the petitioners have miserably failed to
comply with the conditions as indicated in the proceedings dated 06.05.2010.
Therefore, they cannot be heard to say that the Corporation was responsible for
the state of affairs. The respondent, in their counter-affidavit, very
categorically pointed out that the Corporation is now contemplating to construct
additional shops and the petitioners would be allotted shops in the new complex.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on instructions,
submitted that the Corporation has taken all possible efforts to construct the
shops and the construction would be commenced very soon.
8. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners have to wait
till the construction of additional shops by the respondent.
9. The petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the subsequent
notification dated 26.11.2010. It is not as if the petitioners were not given
allotment. The respondent has given shops to all the existing licensees and it
was only on account of the failure on the part of the petitioners, they were not
given the shops. Therefore, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned
notification.
10. The respondent is directed to take all possible measures to
construct the additional shops at an early date and after such construction,
shops should be allotted to the petitioners as indicated in the proceedings
dated 06.05.2010.
11. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observation.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
SML
To
The Commissioner,
Madurai City Municipal Corporation,
Arignar Anna Maligai,
Tallakulam,
Madurai.