Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3194
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Parthiban, J.
Arumuga Nainar - Appellant
Vs.
District Collector, Tirunelveli District - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 14975, 20734 of 2018; Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 13538, 13539, 15514, 15515, 18481 & 18482 of 2018
Decided On : 10-10-2018
Advocate Appeared:
T. Arul, A. Muthukaruppan, C. Ramar, G. Angappan
The main legal point established is that the authority specified in the relevant rule must make a speaking and reasonable decision considering the factors outlined in the rule for lease extension.
Headnote:
Toll Charges - Lease Renewal - Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Procedure for Conducting Public Auctions of Leases and Sales in Panchayats) Rules, 2001 - Rule 23
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought renewal of lease for collecting toll charges in a weekly market. The first respondent rejected the claim and issued a tender notification for fresh auction. The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the first respondent's rejection of the lease renewal was contrary to Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Rules. The Court also noted that the first respondent's order was non-speaking and unreasonable, and did not consider the factors specified in the Rule for lease extension.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to decide on lease renewal, the reasonableness of the rejection, and the compliance with Rule 23.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the first respondent, not being the authority specified in Rule 23, could not reject the lease renewal contrary to the Rule. The Court emphasized the need for a speaking and reasonable order considering the factors outlined in the Rule for lease extension.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the second respondent to grant the Petitioner a one-year lease extension, subject to payment of the enhanced lease amount as per the Rule and government instructions.
V. Parthiban, J.
W.P(Md)No.20734 of 2018
The Petitioner was given lease by the second respondent to collect toll charges in the weekly market at Munainjipatti Village from the vehicles and vendors of the market for selling their goods for the period from 1.7.2017 to 30.6.2018.The lease amount was fixed at Rs. 5,92,800/- per annum. The lease period was over by 30.6.2018. Before expiry of lease period, the Petitioner submitted his representation for renewal of lease, for a further period of one year and he is also inclined to pay the enhanced lease amount in terms of the instructions issued by the Government in the matter of grant of such lease. However, the said representation was not considered and therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court in W.P(MD)No.12896 of 2018. This Court vide its order, dated 18.6.2018, directed the second respondent namely, the Block Development Officer to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the Petitioner.
2. In pursuance of the direction, an order was passed by the first respondent on 2.7.2018, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for extension of lease. Immediately thereafter, vide proceedings, dated 3.7.2018, a tender notification was issued calling for fresh auction in respect of the leasing right enjoyed by the petitioner for the subject market and base price was fixed at Rs. 5,20,000/-. Although the said order was put to challenge in the Writ Petition, when the matter came up for hearing, it is informed to the Court that already an order was passed by the first respondent on 2.7.2018 rejecting the request of the Petitioner. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed challenging the said order passed by the first respondent/District Collector.
3. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Judge of this Court vide order, dated 12.7.2018 in W.P(MD)No.14975 of 2018 granted an interim order of stay of the tender notification . The learned Judge passed a detailed order granting interim order as follows:
''Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Procedure for Conducting Public Auctions of Leases and Sales in Panchayats) Rules, 2001 deals with the powers for renewal of lease for the existing lessees. In the instant case, the Petitioner's lease for collecting toll charge from vehicles and vendors of the weekly market expired on 30.06.2018. Even three months prior to the expiry, the Petitioner herein had given a representation on 14.3.2018 seeking for renewal of his license for further period of one year. Though the second respondent had received the representation, no orders were passed, which prompted the Petitioner to file a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.12896 of 2018 and by an order, dated 18.6.2018, this Court had directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks. The language of Rule 23 Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Procedure for Conducting Public Auctions of Leases and Sales in Panchayats) Rules, 2001, is to the effect that whenever an application for renewal of lease is made, the concerned authority is required to positively consider the same. In the instant case, though the second respondent had made a positive recommendation and submitted the same to the first respondent, the first respondent seems to have rejected the recommendation through his order dated 02.07.2018, which is contrary to Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat (Procedure for Conducting Public Auctions of Leases and Sales in Panchayats) Rules, 2001, and as such the Petitioner may have derived the right to continue the lease for further period of one year in view of the language of Section 23. Consequently, the second respondent may not be justified in proceeding with the impugned tender notification dated 3.7.2018. Hence there shall be an order of interim stay of the tender notification for the present.''
4. In pursuance to the interim direction, it appears that the Petitioner started collecting the toll charges in the Munainjipatti weekly market till date.
5. The
