BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09/06/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition (MD)No.3699 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2008 P.Packialakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Executive Officer, Eral Special Grade Town Panchayat, Thoothukudi District. 2.The Chairman, Eral Special Grade Town Panchayat, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents PRAYER Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Resolution No.111, dated 27.03.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the petitioner's lease hold right of collecting entry fees at Eral Bus Stand for additional period of five months. !For Petitioner ...Mr.R.Anand ^For Respondents ...Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the resolution of the second
respondent, Eral Special Grade Town Panchayat, dated 27.03.2008, by which the
second respondent panchayat has decided to collect entry fees in respect of
buses entering into the Bus Stand belonging to the second respondent panchayat
by itself through its officials.
2.The case of the petitioner is that for the year 2007-2008, an auction
was conducted by the second respondent for the above said purpose and on
19.04.2007, the petitioner was permitted to collect entry fees for the buses
plying into the Eral Bus Stand, Thoothukudi since he happened to be the highest
bidder. Admittedly, the petitioner has enjoyed the said lease hold right till
March 2008 and he has been collecting the amount.
3.The further case of the petitioner is that for the period from April
2008, he being the person authorised by the second respondent to collect entry
fees has been under the impression that either fresh tender will be called for
or he would be permitted to collect entry fees.
4.It is his further case that even though, he has been collecting entry
fees in respect of private buses, the Government owned buses have refused to
give such entry fees to him, in spite of the licence granted to him upto March
2008 and after December 2007, he was unable to collect entry fees from the
Government owned buses for the past three months. Therefore, according to him,
at least he should have been permitted to continue the licence for another three
months period, the period in which he was refused for the payment of entry fees
by the Government owned buses. Without considering the above said grievance of
the petitioner, the second respondent panchayat has passed the impugned
resolution which according to the petitioner takes away the right to carry on
his business.
5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend
that by order dated 05.03.2008 it has been admitted by the second respondent
itself that the petitioner has not been paid entry fees by the Government owned
buses and therefore, in equity, the second respondent should have permitted the
petitioner to continue at least for the remaining period of three months which
has not been done and therefore, the act of the second respondent in passing
such resolution in taking away the rights of the petitioner is against the
principles of equity.
6.On the other hand, the second respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
It is admitted that for the year 2007-2008, the petitioner has been permitted to
collect entry fees from the buses both the private buses as well as the
Government owned buses. However, it is the case of the second respondent in the
counter affidavit that till March 2008, namely, the period within which he was
granted permission, the petitioner has been collecting necessary fees and it is
after 31.03.2008, the petitioner’s permission comes to an end and thereafter,
the second respondent panchayat having decided to take up the power of
collection of entry fees within itself has passed the impugned resolution.
7.According to the learned Government Advocate, the second respondent
being the statutory authority is entitled to pass such a resolution which cannot
be questioned. It is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate
that when once the petitioner’s right to collect the entry fees has comes to an
end on 31.03.2008, there is no right subsisting on the petitioner to claim that
he should be permitted for the subsequent years also.
8.I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both the
parties.
9.On the face of it, it has been admitted that the original permission was
granted only upto 31.03.2008 and the period having come to an end merely because
the petitioner was prevented from collecting entry fees in respect of the
Government owned buses for a period of three months that would not give him any
right to have further extension of time. It is always open to him to work out
his remedy if by the conduct of the second respondent he was virtually prevented
from collecting such entry fees as per the resolution and that does not mean as
a matter of right he should get extension of period of licence. Further, it is
relevant to point out that the second respondent by order dated 05.03.2008
itself has clearly made out its mind to reject further extension of time to
collect the entry fees stating that the second respondent itself wants to take
over the right of collection of entry fees and that order has not been
challenged. It is certainly not open to the petitioner to challenge the
impugned resolution now in the absence of mala fide attributed to the second
respondent. The resolution being passed by second respondent, the petitioner
having no right at all to continue his licence.
10.In view of the same, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
As far as the claim of the petitioner that he has paid a huge amount as deposit,
it is open to him to make necessary representation to the concerned authorities
for the refund. It is needless to state that it is always open to the petitioner
to make further representation to the District Collector praying for allotment
of licence in which event, it is open to the District Collector as well as the
second respondent to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2008 are closed.
sms
To
1.The Executive Officer,
Eral Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Thoothukudi District.
2.The Chairman,
Eral Special Grade Town Panchayat,
Thoothukudi District.