Ismail, J.- Writ Appeal No. 218 of 1972 has been filed against the Judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J., dated 20th July, 1972 dismissing W.P. No. 777 of 1972, filed by the appellant herein. The Palayamcottai Municipality owns a public market known as the Municipal Mahatma Gandhi Market and the appellant herein happened to be a licensee of stall Nos. 1 and 2 in Block No. 9 of the said market. He filed the writ petition (W.P.No. 777 of 1972) praying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the respondents therein from enforcing or collecting the increased fees for the use of the stalls, shops, pans and stands situated in the Mahatma Gandhi Market at Palayamcottai, pursuant to the resolution passed by the first respondent, namely, the Municipal Council,. No. 1518 (1 to 7) dated 14th February,, 1972. The said market has been established several years ago and is maintained out of the Municipal funds. The market consists of a large number of stalls and one portion of the market is reserved as fresh market. Certain other stalls in another portion are reserved as mutton stalls. In addition to there being a regular market, a weekly shandy or fair is also held every Thursday. On such shandy days, a large number of vendors come to the market to sell their goods. The first respondent-Municipal Council had been farming out the right to collect the fees in the market year after year, as provided for in section 260 (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commissioner of the Palayamcottai Municipality in February, 1972, put up a proposal to the first respondent-Municipal Council to enhance the fees fixed for the various stalls. At a meeting of the Council held on 14th February, 1972, the first respondent-Municipal Council adopted a resolution No. 1518 by which it raised the, fees fixed for the shops situate inside the market by 75 per cent. and for the stalls situate along the perimeter of the market by 100 per cent. Similar enhancements were resolved upon in respect of other fees. The necessary notification was published on 16th February, 1972, in the local dailies, Dhina Thanthi and Dhina Malar. The date of auctioning the right to collect the fees in the market was fixed at 10th March, 1972. The schedule of rates in respect of each stall had been mentioned in the auction notice, which was circulated. The second respondent herein was the highest bidder in the auction held on 10th March, 1972, and his bid amount was Rs. 1,61,600 and the same was accepted by the first respondent-Council by its resolution No. 1590, dated 24th March, 1972. The right that was sold in auction was the right to collect the fees in the market for the financial year commencing from Ist April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973. It is under these circumstances the appellant herein filed the above writ petition for the reliefs referred to above on 5th April, 1972. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in addition to several other grounds, one of the grounds raised was that no notice or opportunity Was given to persons like the appellant to show cause against the enhancement of the licence fees. According to the appellant, subsequent to the resolution of the Municipal Council referred to above, 17 members of the Municipal Council, whose strength has 32, submitted a requisition for a meeting of the Municipal Council to reconsider the Resolution No. i5i8 and although the Chairman called for, what was turned out to be an “informal meeting” on 4th March, 1972 and all the 17 members who submitted the requisition were present at the so called “informal meeting”, the Chairman and the other members were not present and hence no useful discussion or review of Resolution No. 1518 took palce. On the other hand, the first respondent in its counter-affidavit pointed out that the stall-holders did not submit any petition requesting to withdraw the enhancement as alleged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document