The power to manage and sell public market properties lies with the designated authority, dismissing claims of exclusive rights by vendors under market regulation statutes.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is an association of traders in the Koyambedu market. The members of the petitioner association indulge in vegetable business. Each of the members have been allotted shops in the Koyambedu Wholesale Market. In the market, seven godowns were constructed for the benefit of those in retail trade.

2. The petitioner alleges that the seven godowns were constructed in order to provide space for storing goods by the traders, who have been allotted the shops. It is stated that of the seven godowns bearing Nos.VN-124, VG-88, E-88, J-88, H-88, A-124 & C-88, godown No.A-124 alone was the subject matter of a sale in the year 2006. Other godowns were initially allotted on rental basis to various associations and individuals, and godown No.C-88 was sold to one, M/s. Indian Vegetables. They plead that the sale of C-88, H-88 & A-124, is contrary to the policy decision taken by the 1^st respondent, since the godowns were meant only for the vendors and they ought not to have been sold to third parties.

3. The cause of action for the writ petition is that the 4^th respondent – CMDA had issued a tender notification on 24.09.2025, for the sale of godown. It is pleaded that such a sale is in violation of Section 5 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) Act,1996 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 24 of 1996') and hence, it requires to be interfered with.

4. I heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Raja Sekhar for the petitioner, Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Additional Government Pleader for 1^st respondent and Mr.V.Sudalai Selvan for the respondents 2 & 4.

5. It is the plea of Mr.M.S.Krishnan that under Section 5 of the Act 24 of 1996, it is only the 3^rd respondent, Market Management Committee, which has the jurisdiction to bring the godown for sale and the CMDA does not have the jurisdiction to do so. He invites my attention to Section 2(6), 2(7) and 2(8) of the Act 24 of 1996, to urge that once a Market Committee is formed under Section 5 (1) of the Act 24 of 1996, then the property vests with such a committee, and not that any of the other respondents. He points out that the declaration under the Act amounts to vesting of the property with the committee and therefore, the impugned notification issued by the 4^th respondent is null and void.

6. Mr.M.Raja Sekhar, after adopting these submissions, points out that under Section 25 of the Act 24 of 1996, it is the Market Management Committee which has to deal with the issue and not respondents 2 & 4. He states the purpose for which eight godowns were identified in the vegetable market, and four godowns in the flower market, was to enable the wholesale traders, who have been moved to the said area, to store their goods, and alienation of the same amounts to a violation for the very purpose for which the specified markets had been created. He points out to the proceedings of the Market Management Committee dated 08.02.2018, to state that the Market Management Committee had decided to lease out these godowns and today, it is moving away from the same and attempting to alienate the same to the prejudice of the traders and merchants. Hence, both the counsel plead that the impugned notification deserves to be quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 7.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and I have gone through the records in detail.

8. This is not the first time that the godowns are being brought for auction. The