IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28/03/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION No.2487 OF 2003
WPMP.NOs.3098 & 3099 OF 2003
AND
WVMP.NO.231 OF 2003
Kesavalu Naidu,
S/o. Gopala Naidu .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,
Rep. by its Member-Secretary,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Area Development Unit,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. R. Sivaprakasam,
No.15, Park Street,
Kilpauk Garden Colony,
Chennai 600 010. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.Mohan Parasaran
Senior Counsel for
Mr.ARL. Sundaresan
For Respondents 1 & 2: Mr.V. Perumal
Respondent -3 : Mr.R. Thiagarajan
:J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter No.K1/9347/2002
dated 3.12.2002 and for directing the respondents 1 & 2 to allot plot No.179-E
Road, at the junction of E-Road and F-Road of Koyambedu Market Complex.
2. The first respondent published advertisement in New Indian Express
dated 5.9.2002 inviting applications for allotment of plots for various
purposes including commercial plot for Weigh Bridge. The petitioner submitted
his application on 16.9.2992. Subsequently on 22.1.2 003, the petitioner came
to understand that the respondent No.3 was allotted the plot for the purpose
of installation of weigh bridge. Such allotment dated 3.12.2002 has been
challenged on the ground that without following the procedure of allotment by
drawal of lots, the plot has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.3.
It has been specifically asserted that even before the last date for receipt
of the applications, the respondent No.3 was selected as the person and such
allotment, without following the procedure, is arbitrary and should be
quashed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1
indicating that for establishing the weigh bridge, only two applications have
been received, one from the petitioner and other from the respondent No.3.
The petitioner had specifically applied for allotment of commercial plot on
A road, whereas the respondent No.3 had applied for allotment of 4000 sq.ft.
on E road. Since the plots on A road were not of the size required by the
petitioner and he had not applied for any other plot on E road, he cannot
have any grievance regarding allotment in favour of the respondent No.3. It
has been further stated that as per the advertisement, plots are to be
allotted on first come first serve basis.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 it
is stated that the respondent No.3 had already purchased the machineries. It
has been further stated that daughter of the petitioner had filed a writ
petition and another daughter of the petitioner had filed a title suit
challenging such allotment. Since two daughters of the petitioner have become
unsuccessful in their efforts to stall the allotment, the present writ
petition has been filed by the father suppressing the earlier litigations.
5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended
that even though 20.9.2002 was the last date for submission of the
applications, it is apparent from the counter filed on behalf of the third
respondent that the third respondent had been allotted the disputed plot,
which would go to show that the authorities had already decided to allot the
plot in favour of the the respondent No.3 without following the procedure. It
is of course true that in the counter affidavit of the respondent No.3 it has
been indicated that he had placed orders for machineries even before the last
date for receipt of the applications was over. However, this by itself does
not conclusively establish that allotment had been made even prior to the last
date for receipt of the applications. The explanation of the counsel for the
respondent No.3 that the respondent No.3 had placed orders for such
machineries in anticipation of allotment of the plot or for utilisation of the
same in an alternative place cannot be brushed aside.
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has also
contended that as per the advertisement, allotment should have been made by
conducting drawal of lots and such a procedure has not been followed. It is
apparent from the counter affidavit of the respondent No.1 that for
installation of weigh bridge only two applications have been received. The
petitioner had specifically applied for allotment of a plot of much lesser
size in A road of the Market Complex, whereas the allotment has been made in
favour of the respondent No.3 of a plot in E road. Even the plot allotted
to the respondent No.3 is of the size 3265 sq.ft., whereas the petitioner had
applied for allotment of 2400 sq.ft. Since the plot allotted did not match
the specification of the petitioner, who had applied for allotment of smaller
plot in A road, the petitioner cannot have any grievance.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that
the petitioner being a rival in the business has tried to thwart the efforts
of the respondent No.3 by any means cannot be lightly brushed aside. Even
though, in law, the writ petition or the suit filed by the daughters of the
petitioner cannot be said to be litigations by the petitioner himself, the
very fact that a copy of the application filed by the petitioner on an earlier
occasion had been filed in the Miscellaneous cases in the suit filed by the
daughter, gives credence to the submission that the earlier litigations were
inspired by the petitioner.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition, which is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that in
case the petitioner applies for any other plot of lesser size, such
application may be considered by the respondents 1 & 2 notwithstanding the
dismissal of the writ petition. There is no order as to costs. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28-03-2003
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
dpk
To
1. The Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority,
Rep. by its Member-Secretary,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Area Development Unit,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. R. Sivaprakasam,
No.15, Park Street,
Kilpauk Garden Colony,
Chennai 600 010.