High Court Madras High Court

Chidamparanatha Pillai vs )The Executive Officer on 9 September, 2008

Madras High Court
Chidamparanatha Pillai vs )The Executive Officer on 9 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:09/09/2008

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)No.7710 of 2006
W.P.(MD)Nos.9004 & 9023 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1,1,2,2 & 3 of 2006

Chidamparanatha Pillai
				...	Petitioner in W.P.No.7710/2006
Selvaraj
				...	Petitioner in W.P.No.9004/2006
Muthupandi
				...	Petitioner in W.P.No.9023/2006

Vs.

1)The Executive Officer,
  Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
  Sathankulam,
  Tuticorin District.

2)The President,
  Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
  Sathankulam,
  Tuticorin District.

3)T.Madasamy

4)L.K.V.Venkatachalam Pillai
  (R3 & R4 impleaded as per order dated 01.09.2008 in
   M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.7710 of 2006)

				...	Respondents in W.P.No.7710/2006

1)The Executive Officer,
Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Sathankulam,
Thoothukudi District.

2)The President,
Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Sathankulam,
Thoothukudi District.

… Respondents in W.P.No.9004/2006
… Respondents in W.P.No.9023/2006

PRAYER IN W.P.No.7710 of 2006

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing
the respondents to allot a shop covering an extent of 34×13 feet as per the
original allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner at K.T.Kosalram Bus
Stand, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District, considering the petitioner’s
representation dated 20.07.2006.

PRAYER IN W.P.No.9004 of 2006

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing
the respondents to allot a shop No.13 covering an extent of 10×15 feet as per
the original allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner at K.T.Kosalram
Bus Stand, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District, considering the petitioner’s
representation dated 06.09.2006.

PRAYER IN W.P.No.9023 of 2006

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing
the respondents to allot a shop Nos.16 & 17 covering an extent of 10×15 and
10×15 feet as per the original allotment of the site in favour of the petitioner
at K.T.Kosalram Bus Stand, Sathankulam, Tuticorin District, considering the
petitioner’s representation dated 07.09.2006.

!For Petitioners … Mr.K.Srinivasan
^For Respondents … Mr.V.Chellammal, Spl.G.P.

for R1 & R2
Mr.S.Sundar and
Mr.S.Balaji for R3 & R4

:COMMON ORDER

Since the subject matter of the three writ petitions relate to the same
issue they were heard together and a common order is passed.

2.In W.P.(MD)No.7710 of 2006, the petitioner was allotted a vacant site at
Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat in Thiyagi K.T.Kosalram Bus Stand at
Sathankulam. As per the resolution of the Town Panchayat dated 31.03.1998, the
allotments were made and subsequently, the rent for the shops were revised from
time to time.

3.The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9023 of 2006 was also one such allotee. In
W.P.(MD)No.9004 of 2006 the petitioner claims to have been allotted a vacant
site in the year 1990 and the Panchayat had fixed the rent for the vacant site
at Rs.710/- per month for running a Beeda Stall. But for such allotment made in
his favour, the petitioner had not produced any such order in the typed set of
papers.

4.In all the three writ petitions the prayer of the petitioners was for a
direction to allot new shops in favour of the petitioners at the Bus Stand
considering their representations dated 20.07.2006, 06.09.2006 and 07.09.2006.

5.These writ petitions were admitted and interim orders was granted on
01.09.2006, 28.09.2006 and 05.10.2006 respectively. The Executive Officer of
the Town Panchayat had filed vacate stay applications in all the three writ
petitions and when they were listed today the main writ petitions were taken up
for final disposal.

6.It is seen from the records that the petitioners never had any
constructed shops. It is before the construction of the new shops at the Bus
Stand, five persons were allotted temporary shops in the Bus Stand.
Subsequently the lease granted in their favour were extended from time to time.
The Panchayat served notice dated 20.09.2005 stating that in respect of the site
leased out to the petitioners the Panchayat had decided to construct shops under
the Urban Development Scheme and tenders were called for and hence they were
directed the petitioners to vacate the sites within seven days. It was also
averred that the petitioners have vacated the premises. After the construction
was completed, the petitioners made representations to the Panchayat to provide
shops to them. The petitioners’ claim that they made representations to the
Panchayat to allot shops and that the respondent/Panchayat gave certain oral
assurances were denied.

7.It was also further stated that the respondent/Panchayat had invested
huge amounts for the construction of the new shops at the K.T.Kosalram Bus Stand
and therefore, the question of allotting any shops directly to the petitioners
may not arise. It was also stated that in terms of G.O.No.2(D) No.85 Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department dated 19.07.2000 no preferential
right of tenancy can be given to any person after a new building was constructed
after demolishing the existing structures.

8.Even the earlier order of the Government in G.O.No.916 (Rural and Local
Administration Department) dated 15.06.1984 got revoked by the new order dated
19.07.2000. Therefore, the petitioners placing their claims on the basis of the
old G.O. is not available. In G.O.Ms.No.147 (Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department) dated 30.12.2000 it was clearly stated that renewal of
license can be done only if it is beneficial to a local body and it must
increase the welfare measures of the Panchayat and that the income of a
Panchayat must be the determining factor.

9.Pursuant to the said G.O. the Commissioner for Municipal Administration
had issued sufficient guidelines vide his proceedings dated 11.01.2001 wherein
it is clearly stated that the persons cannot have any preferential right over
allotment in the newly constructed shops.

10.In fact, in G.O.Ms.No.147 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department) dated 30.12.2000, in paragraph 7, it is stated that the new lease
amounts fixed for the shops by the local body should not have any financial loss
and if any allottee does not pay the new lease amount, shops should be redeemed
from such shopkeepers and must be allotted to other persons who are willing to
pay the new lease amount.

11.The Commissioner for Municipal Administration in his letter dated
11.01.2001 has also clearly stated that when the new shops were built the claim
of the old leaseholders need not be considered. In the typed set produced by
the learned Special Government Pleader, it is seen that the amount for
constructing the new bus stand by the Special Village Panchayat was sanctioned
by the Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd
with heavy interest. Therefore, necessarily the rentals will have to be fixed
on the basis of the cost of new construction and not on the basis of the request
made by the petitioners.

12.In the affidavit filed support of the writ petition the only ground
raised was legitimate expectation of the erstwhile shop-keepers. The further
contention that they were not in default during the past period. But as found
already the reliance placed upon the petitioners on G.O.Ms.No.916 Rural and
Local Administration Department does not give any preferential right to the
petitioners in the allotment of the new shops. The said G.O. has no application
to the case on hand. On the contrary as rightly contended by Mrs.V.Chellammal,
learned Special Government Pleader that the said G.O. stood cancelled by
G.O.2(D) No.85 dated 19.07.2000.

13.The contention that the petitioners have earlier invested substantial
amounts cannot be accepted, because what was allotted to them was only a site to
put up temporary structures and their lease itself was renewed by the
resolutions of the Panchayat from time to time. Therefore, the argument that
they had invested huge amounts does not find any support from this Court.

14.In any event, the Special Town Panchayat had invested money after
borrowing funds from Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited and the obligation of paying back the said amount also
arises for the local body. They will have to determine the lease amount for new
shops in the light of the investment made therein. That could be done only by
way of publicly auctioning the shops and to fetch maximum revenue for the
Panchayat.

15.Under these circumstances, all the three writ petitions are
misconceived, devoid of merits and accordingly stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.

nbj

To

1)The Executive Officer,
Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Sathankulam,
Tuticorin District.

2)The President,
Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Sathankulam,
Tuticorin District.