IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN T.Gunamani ...Petitioner in Rev.A.No.61 of 2026 D.Karthikeyan ...Petitioner in Rev.A.No.62 of 2026 M.Bhaktavatchalam ...Petitioner in Rev.A.No.63 of 2026 Vs

1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep by its The Member secretary, (Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex), Thalamuthu-Natarajan Maaligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority The Chief Executive Officer, Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex), Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

3. The Senior Estate Officer (K.IC)

(Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex), CMDA / ADU/KWMC / SPL.PROJECTS (Allotment DN), Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600008.

..Respondents in all cases Review Applications (Writ) filed under Order 47 Rule 1read with Section

114 of C.P.C., to review the orders passed in W.P.Nos.17344, 17350 & 17346 of 2021 dated 21.08.2024.

For Petitioner : C.Prakasam (in all cases)

For Respondents : Mrs.P.Veena Suresh (in all cases) Standing Counsel

COMMON ORDER

These Review Applications have been filed to review the order dated

21.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.17344, 17350 & 17346 of 2021, thereby this Court rejecting the request made by the petitioners seeking allotment of the vacant shop bearing No.GL.3, GL.4 and GL.5 each measuring an extent of 160 sq.ft. instead of allotted shops bearing Nos.N/P.31, N/P34 and N/P.36 respectively.

2. The second respondent, after completion of the wholesale market complex at Koyambedu, invited applications from various small vendors for allotment of floor space (platform shops) in Blocks ‘A’ to ‘N’ with a view to accommodate nearly 315 platform shops spread over in all the aforesaid blocks. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted applications and were allotted shop Nos.N/P.31, N/P.34 and N/P.36 respectively. However, the petitioners could not able to occupy the same, since there were certain obstructions. Therefore, they sought allotment of alternative shops instead of the shops originally allotted to them.

3. While pending writ petitions, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises and ascertain whether there was any obstruction preventing access to the shops allotted to the petitioners. Based on the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, it was found that the shops, which were allotted in favour of the petitioners, were very much access and there is no blockage as alleged by them. Therefore, this Court dismissed the writ petition

4. Now, these review applications have been filed on the ground that the shops originally allotted to the petitioners are no longer in existence, since they had already been demolished for the purpose of providing parking facilities. Therefore, the petitioners seek reconsideration of their request for allotment of alternative vacant shops bearing Nos. GL3, GL4 and GL5.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the alternative shops cannot be allotted to the petitioners without conducting a public auction. Originally, the petitioners were allotted platform shops and now all the shops are no longer in existence, since all the shops were demolished for the purpose of providing parking facilities. Though the shops which are vacant, the same cannot be allotted in favour of the petitioners by way of alternative allotment without conducting any public auction.

6. Admittedly, the shops, originally allotted to the petitioners, viz., Shop Nos.N/P.31, N/P.34 and N/P.36 have already been demolished and are no longer in existence. The learned counsel also submits that after demolition of the said shops, the petitioners were directed to collect the amount which were deposited by them. However, till date, they did not come forward to collect the same.

7. Even according to the petitioners, shop Nos.GL3, GL4 and GL5 each meas