T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

1. All the writ petitions pertain to auction of the shops owned by the Nagercoil Municipality, granting licence to the successful bidders for a period of 3 years. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions were identical, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD) No.653 of 2018 has been filed by a licensee of Shop No.1, Anna Bus Stand, Nagercoil and the prayer sought is to declare Section 375(1) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act No.4 of 2017 and all other enactments extending the period of the Special Officer from time to time as ultra vires, unconstitutional and liable to be struck off. The other writ petitions filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.653 of 2018 and others are challenging the auction notification issued by the respondent municipality dated 28.12.2017, bringing for auction of the shops owned by the municipality. Though, there may be a slight variation in the prayer sought for in the batch of cases, essentially, the challenge is to the auction notification issued by the respondent municipality. In the light of the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioners, W.P.(MD) No.653 of 2018 is taken as the lead case.

3. Mr. S. Subbiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that Section 375 of the Act is a transitory provision and in terms of sub-section 1 of Section 375, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the State Government may, by notification, if necessary, appoint Special Officers to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the municipalities, until the date on which the first meeting of the municipal councils are held after ordinary elections to the municipalities. It is further submitted that Section 375-B was inserted by Amending Act 4 of 2017, by which, the Government of Tamil Nadu appointed Special Officers to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the municipalities or the town panchayats, till the date on which, first meeting of the council is held after ordinary elections to the municipalities or town panchayats.

4. It is submitted that municipal council has been defined under Section 3(12-C) to mean the counsel or the municipality as the case may be. The municipality has been defined under Section 3(12-D) to mean an institution of self-government constituted for a smaller urban area as defined in clause (2) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution. Referring to Articles 243-Q, 243-R, 243-S, 243-T and 243-W, it is submitted that the municipality shall be a self-government and the State has a duty to implement the constitutional provisions and a Special Officer cannot discharge the functions of a municipal counsel, as a municipality has to function as institution as self- government in terms of Article 243-W of the Constitution. Therefore, it is submitted that the power of the municipal council cannot be usurped by a Special Officer, who is a paid officer of the Government and at any stretch of imagination, such a paid officer cannot be a self-government to fulfil the Constitutional mandate. Thus, it is submitted that the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to bring for auction the shops owned by the municipality and it is only the municipal counsil, which is a democratically elected body, can discharge the said function.

5. In this regard, the learned senior counsel referred to Section 19, 25 of the Act and Schedule III, which deals with rules regarding proceedings of the municipal council. It is therefore submitted that when transactions can be done only by the municipal council, which is a self-government merely by insertion of Section 375-B, the powers of the council cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the impugned provisions are liable to be struck down.

6. It is further submitted that Section 21 deals with council's power to call for records and Section 22 mandates that the executive authority to carry out