IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Erode Gani Market Dinasari Anaithu Siru Javuli Viyabarigal Sangam Rep. By its President, Erode – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Local Authority Department, Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P No. 18106 of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 17301 of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2023
Writ Petition - Business Dispute - G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007 - Court discussed the legal provisions of G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007, which mandates the lease of shops only by inviting applications and conducting a public auction. The court emphasized the importance of preventing arbitrariness in shop allotment and maximizing income for the Municipality/Corporation. The court also considered a previous order that gave first option to existing traders in a similar case, but clarified that it cannot be taken as a precedent in the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner Association sought a writ of mandamus to permit its members to continue their business in a temporary shed at Gani Market, Erode, as the 2nd respondent wanted to construct a shopping complex and informed the small traders to vacate.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the members of the petitioner Association to vacate and hand over possession of the shops to the 2nd respondent within sixty days, considering the need for open space for parking of vehicles, loading and unloading of goods, etc.
Issues: Dispute over the right to continue business in a temporary shed at Gani Market, Erode, in light of the 2nd respondent's plan to construct a shopping complex.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007, which mandates the lease of shops only by inviting applications and conducting a public auction to prevent arbitrariness in shop allotment and maximize income for the Municipality/Corporation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the members of the petitioner Association to vacate and hand over possession of the shops to the 2nd respondent within sixty days.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to permit the members of the petitioner association to continue their small places to the extent of 3 x 5 Sq.Ft. for selling clothes in the temporary shed at Gani Market, Panneerselvam Park, Erode.)
1. This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the members of the petitioner Association to continue to do their business in the temporary shed at Gani Market at Erode District.
2. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs.S.Mythreye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent and Mr.A.Silambannan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent
3. The case of the petitioner is that one Gani was owning an extent of 3.25 acres of land within the jurisdiction of Erode Municipality. He had gifted this property to the Municipality and small traders numbering about 430 were given a space of 3 x 5 sq. ft. for doing their business. The 2nd respondent wanted to construct a shopping complex and hence, informed the small traders that they should vacate the shops and that they will be allotted shops after the completion of the shopping complex.
4. In the light of the above development, many of the small traders vacated and nearly 106 traders belonging to the petitioner Association continued to run the business in the existing place.
5. The grievance of the petitioner Association is that the traders are eking their livelihood only from income derived from the business run by them at Gani market in temporary sheds and attempts were made by the 2nd respondent to forcibly evict the small traders. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the members of the petitioner Association to continue to do their business in the existing place.
6. The petitioner Association, after coming to know that a shopping complex is going to be constructed by the 2nd respondent, wanted shops to be alloted to them on a priority basis without participating in the tender. Hence, the Association filed a writ petition in W.P.No.19847 of 2021 seeking for appropriate directions to allot shops in the new constructed commercial complex. This writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 14.12.2021 with a direction to the 2nd respondent Corporation to deal with the representation made by the Association and to take a decision, within the time frame fixed by this Court.
7. Pursuant to the above order, the 2nd respondent Corporation rejected the request made by the Association through proceedings dated 10.02.2022 on the ground that they are bound by G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007 and hence, they are duty bound to lease the shops only by inviting applications and conducting a public auction. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent also took steps to invite applications for allotting the shops in public auction to successful bidders.
8. The members of the petitioner Association realized the fact that they cannot afford to pay the rent that is fixed for the shops in the new commercial complex. Therefore, the Association gave up their claim for allotment of shops in the new shopping complex. Alternatively, for those members who continued to run the business in the existing place, the Association wanted to safeguard their interest and hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the members of the Association to continue their business in the existing place.
9. In the considered view of this Court, the Association after having taken a conscious decision to relocate their business to the shops in the new commercial complex, realized that it involves a cost factor and they want to wriggle out of the earlier stand taken by them. Whenever, any new
The legal principle established is the importance of following G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007, to prevent arbitrariness in shop allotment and maximize income for the Municipality/Corporation.
Courts can direct administrative authorities to consider pending representations within a specified timeframe without examining the merits of the case.
A writ petition may be deemed infructuous in the absence of representation from petitioners, leading to closure.
Blanket mandamus via PIL not issuable; corporation to handle unauthorized constructions per law.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with allotment orders and directed the GMC Authorities to take measures to protect the business prospects of the petitioners.
The court cannot grant relief beyond what is specifically sought in the plaint, emphasizing the necessity of amending the plaint for additional relief.
The court mandates transparent public auction for government property allotments, emphasizing procedural compliance to prevent arbitrary dispossession.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.