2011 Supreme(Mad) 2582
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Cuddalore Bus Stand and Lawrence Road Shop Traders Welfare Sangam rep by its President & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department & Others
W.P.Nos.19152 & 19755 of 2009 & M.P.Nos.1,2,1,2 & 3 of 2009
Decided on : 07-06-2011
For the Petitioners:V. Raghupathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1 & R2 - C. Devi, GA, R3 - M. Dhandapani, Spl. G.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of promissory estoppel and the Municipality's obligation to honor the earlier resolution and government orders in the shops' allotment.
Headnote:
Estoppel - Municipality Shops Allotment - G.O.Ms.No.147, MA&WS Department, dated 30.12.2000, G.O.Ms.No.92, MA&WS Department, dated 3.7.2007, G.O.Ms.No.150, MA&WS Department, dated 06.09.2007 - The court discussed the legal provisions and their interpretations, including the promissory estoppel principle, and how they influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the notice cum intimation order of the Municipality and sought a direction to reallot the shops as per the resolution No.192, dated 30.03.2007 and various Government Orders. The Municipality had directed the shops to be given on public auction and refunded the deposited amounts made by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Municipality's action of cancelling the earlier order and refunding the amount was illegal. The court also discussed the promise made by the Municipality and the legal implications of the same.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the Municipality's actions, the promise made to the shop keepers, and the applicability of government orders in the shops' allotment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of promissory estoppel and discussed the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the Municipality's obligation to honor the earlier resolution and the implications of the government orders.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the writ petitions, stating that the Municipality's actions were illegal and that the petitioners must follow the legal route for shop allotment. No costs were awarded.
1. The first writ petition was filed by Cuddalore Bus Stand and Lawrence Road Shop Traders Welfare Sangam, represented by its President. It is claimed that it was a registered association with Registration No.2 of 2009. The original prayer in the first writ petition is to challenge the notice cum intimation order of the third respondent Cuddalore Municipality, dated 4.8.2009 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to the respondents to reallot the shops to the petitioners as per the resolution of the Municipality No.192, dated 30.3.2007 as well as the Government Orders in G.O. (2D)No.147, MA&WS Department, dated 30.12.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.92, MA&WS Department, dated 3.7.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner had moved an application in M.P.No.3 of 2009 seeking for amendment of the prayer which was also ordered by this court on 18.11.2009.
2. By the amended prayer, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order, dated 1.9.2008 which culminated into a notice dated 4.8.2009 and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to reallot the shops as per the resolution No.192, dated 30.03.2007 as well as two Government Orders as referred to above and also G.O.Ms.No.150, MA&WS Department, dated 06.09.2007.
3. While the first writ petition was pending, individual shop keepers numbering 40 persons have filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.19755 of 2009 with same prayer as well as by a similar amendment made subsequently.
4. In both writ petitions, notice was taken for the Municipality by Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader and for first and second respondents, Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate took notice.
5. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and also the respective counsels for respondents.
6. By the impugned order, dated 4.8.2009, a reference was made to the order of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, dated 1.9.2008. By the aforesaid order, the second respondent had directed the third respondent that the Government Order made in G.O.Ms.No.916, Rural Development cum Local Authority Department, dated 15.6.1984 was cancelled by the Government by G.O.(2D)No.85, MA&WS Department, dated 19.7.2000. In view of the same, shops newly built by the Municipality need not be given to old lessees without public auction and by fixing rent. Therefore the Municipality was informed that as and when the Municipality demolishes the old shops in the bus stand and built new shops, there was no question of avoiding a public auction for allotting the shops. It is pursuant to the said order, the impugned order of the Municipality came to be issued on 4.8.2009. The Municipality after referring to the Government Order, had stated that the newly built shops will be given on public auction and will be given to the highest bidders and after getting approval with the Municipality they will be allotted. Therefore, the deposited amounts made by the petitioners through bank drafts were directed to be refunded to the petitioners.
7. Mr.V.Raghupathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that shops in the bus stand were allotted by the Municipality on payment of monthly lease rent 35 years ago. On 25.01.2007, the Municipality had informed the shop keepers about the proposed demolition. On 8.3.2007, a joint meting between the members of the association and the Municipal Commissioner was held. Thereafter, the Municipality had passed a resolution No.192, dated 30.3.2007. By the resolution, the Municipality had decided to demolish the shops and building, but while building new shops, they will be allotted to the old shop keepers provided the old shop keepers will deposit whatever the amount of cost to build the shop. After construction of the shops, they will be allotted to same persons who are now paying rent and they must pay the rent fixed by the P.W.D. The lease will be renewed once in three years fixing revised rent. In case the shop keeper is no more, the