Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA A. Arunkumar, S/o. Anbazhagan, No.1, First Floor (Room No.2), Corporation Colony, 2nd Street, muhthurangan Salai, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017 Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.Regional Director of Municipal Administration Vellore Region, No.10, Sarathy Nagar, Kagithapattarai, Vellore - 632 012. 3.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District. 4.Thiruvannamalai Municipality Rep. by its the Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai 5.S. Shantha Respondent(s)
Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, th pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4 Respondent to cancel the allotments of Shop No. 7 and its two adjacent shops at Vadapuram, Thiruvannamalai Municipality Bus stand, Thiruvanmmalai District by restoring the original structure of the shops particularly by removing the partition walls in between the shops then subsequently to conduct a fresh auction for the shop No.7 and its two adjacent shops located at Vadapuram, Thiruvannamalai Municipality Bus stand, Thiruvanmmalai District. For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, Sr.C. For Mr. P.G. Thiyagu For Respondent(s): Mr. V. Manoharan, AGP for R1 to R3. Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, for R4 Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Sr.C for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran for R5 dt. 05/6/25
ORDER
th The above Writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, directing the 4 respondent to cancel the allotment of Shop No.7, and its two adjacent shops at Vadapuram, Thiruvannamalai Municipality Bus stand, Thiruvannamalai District, by restoring the original structure of the shops, particularly by removing partition walls in between the shops and to subsequently conduct fresh auction of the shops.
2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Thiruvannamalai and
presently residing at Chennai. The petitioner states that Thiruvannamalai Municipality possesses several properties including the shops located at Thiruvannamalai Bus stop, at Valarpuram. The petitioner states that one of the shops located at Vadapuram bus terminus, was originally allotted to the 5th respondent's husband, late Shankar, way back in the year 2008, without regular auction being conducted. The petitioner further states that the deceased, P.Shankar, later became a councillor of 4th Ward. After his demise, the shop was taken over by his wife Shantha, the 5th respondent herein. The 5th respondent occupied two adjacent shops and by removing partition between the two shops and by demolishing the walls, she reconstructed the same as one single shop. The petitioner complained to the Municipality regarding the illegal construction made by the 5th respondent, but no action was taken. The petitioner therefore filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
3. The 4th respondent filed counter stating, inter alia that, the writ petition was not maintainable. The respondents stated that earlier by reckoning the lease period of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.92, M.A.W.S., dated 03.07.2007, and
anticipating lapse of the lease on completion of nine years in 2016, the 4th respondent issued tender on 18.05.2015, for leasing out shop No.7. The 5th respondent challenged the said tender notification in W.P.No.16266 of 2015, along with an interim application for stay of the tender notification. This Court on 09.06.2015, passed interim order, restraining the 4th respondent from creating any third party rights in Shop No.7. When the case was pending, on 25.06.2015, the 5th respondent requested for allotment of shop No.7 by agreeing to pay revised rent as fixed by the 4th respondent and further agreeing to withdraw the writ petition. The 5th respondent thereafter withdrew the writ petition and based on the 5th respondent's application for name transfer, shop No.7 was transferred in her name. The respondents denied the petitioner's contention that the 5th respondent had violated the lease conditions by converting the shops into a single shop. The respondents further submitted that the 5th respondent was regularly paying enhanced rent for the shop, including for the extended area of the shop. The respondents hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. The 5th respondent filed detail counter stating inter alia that, by
resolution dated 17.12.2015, the Municipality had transferred the license for shop No.7 in her favour and that she was running the shop by regularly paying the rent to the Municipality. The 5th respondent therefore stated that there were no merits in the writ petition and hence the same deserved to be dismissed.
5. I heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.
6. In G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007, it is held as follows:
@ii) efuhl;rpf; filfs;. Xnu neuj;jpy; K:d;whz;L fhyj;jpw;Ff; Fj;jiff;F tplg;glyhk; K:d;W Mz;Lfisf; bfhz;l xU bjhFg;g[f; fhy mst[ Kotiltjd; nghpy;. mf;Fj;jif jd;dpay;ghfnt (automatically) g[Fg;gpf;fg;gLk;/ ,t;thwhf xd;gJ Mz;Lfs; tiuapy; g[Jg;gpf;fg;gLk; K:d;whz;LfSf;F xU Kiw Fj;jifj; bjhif 15 (gjpide;J) rjtPjk; cah;j;jg;gLk;/ (,e;epge;jid jw;nghJ Fj;jifia mDgtpj;JtUk; Fj;jifjhuh;fSf;Fk; bghUe;Jk;) iii) xd;gJ Mz;LfSf;Fg; gpd;dh;. Fj;jif thlif kWkjpg;g PL bra;ag;gl ntz;Lk;/ jw;nghija Fj;jifjhuUf;F mg;nghija m';fho kjpg;gpd; mog;gilapyhd jpUj;jpaikf;fg;gl;l Fj;jif
tPjj;jpy;. nkw;bfhz;L 9 Mz;LfSf;F Fj;jiff; fhy msit ePl;oj;Jf; bfhs;s Kd;Dhpik mspf;fyhk;/ mth; xg;g[f; bfhs;stpy;iyahdhy;. mr; brhj;J bghJ Vyj;jpd; K:yk; Fj;jiff;F tpl ntz;Lk;/@
7. The materials on record reveal that pursuant to the 5th respondent's
application for name transfer, the 4th respondent had effected name transfer in the name of the 5th respondent in the place of her deceased husband. The 5 th respondent's lease was periodically extended in terms of the aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.07.2007. Admittedly, the 5th respondent's lease as per the aforesaid Government Order is said to expire on 31.03.2026 and consequently, as per the aforesaid Government Order, the respondents 1 to 4 are under a statutory obligation to conduct public auction upon the expiry of the lease. Even the learned counsel for the 4th respondent fairly conceded that the Municipality is statutorily bound to conduct such auction on the expiry of the 5th respondent's lease on 31.03.2026.
8. In the light of the above, since the 5th respondent's lease admittedly expires on 31.03.2026, this Court holds that the respondents 1 to 4 are duty
bound, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.92, to conduct a public auction immediately upon the expiry of the current lease period of the 5th respondent. The concession of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, fortifies this position, and accordingly the Municipality is directed to ensure that the auction is duly conducted after the expiry of the 5th respondent's lease on 31.03.2026, without fail.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order
as to costs. dsn 23-07-2025 Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1.Commissionerate of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai. 2.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Vellore Region, No.10, Sarathy Nagar, Kagithapattarai, Vellore - 632 012. 3.The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
4. The Commissioner, Thiruvannamalai Municipality, Thiruvannamalai. N.MALA J. dsn 23-07-2025