Judgment:
ORDER
E. Padmanabhan, J.
1. All the five writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner.
2. Writ Petition No. 7075 of 1995 has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the issue of writ of certio-rari, to call for and quash the records of the 2nd respondent bearing No. Na. Ka. 92 of 1995 dated 28.4.1995.
3. Writ Petition No. 7235 of 1995 has been filed, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in Na. Ka. No. 92 of 1995 dated 9.5.1995.
4. Writ Petition No. 1693 of 1996 was filed by the same petitioner, against the same respondents, seeking for the issue of Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 368 of 1995 dated 8.2.1996 and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue an application for participating in the weekly auction of the Kannivadi Town Panchayat, scheduled to be held on 15.2.1996 or any other subsequent.
5. Writ Petition No. 3701 of 1996 has been filed, praying for issue of writ of certiorari mandamus or direction for forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from confirming the auction held on 15.3.1996 pur-suant to the order of the 2nd respondent in Na. Ka. No. 368 dated 4.3.1996, pending design in writ petition No. 7075 of 1995.
6. Writ Petition No. 1893 of 1997 has been filed, praying for the issue of writ of certriorari mandamus to call for and quash the order bearing No. Na. Ka. 51/1997, dated 28.1.1997 passed by the second respondent and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to collect the toll for the remaining period of the year 1995-96 on condition imposed by the respondents.
7. The Kannivadi weekly Shandy was established by the 2nd respondent Panchayat. The right to collect the gate fees from the persons who exhibit their com-modities in the market is being auctioned annually. For the year 1995-96, auction notification has also been published on 13.1.1995 to auction for the privilege to collect the fees for the said weekly auction Shandy. The auction was conducted on 15.2.1995 and the highest bid was Rs. 12,98,000. The first respondent has also confirmed the highest bid. The writ petitioner began to collect the fees from 7.4.1995 i.e., the first date of the order commencing from 1.4.1995. The 2nd respondent Panchayat received number of complaints from the merchants and the general pub-lic that the petitioner is extracting more fees, than the prescribed fees, violating the conditions, stipulated in the auction agreement. After inspection and after offering an opportunity, the 2nd respondent imposed a fine of Rs. 300 for excess collection. Once again complaints have been received from the merchants and general public alleging that the writ petitioner had been extracting more fees than prescribed. The second respondent in writ petitions, after inspection and after offering an opportunity, imposed a fine of Rs. 300 on 14.4.1995. At the instance of the 2nd respondent panchayat, the first respondent appointed a committee, consisting of 3 Executive Officer and 4 others from different Panchayats, for investigation with respect to the complaints and alleged irregularities by the writ petitioner. Based on the report submitted by the said committee the 1st respondent District Collector issued an Enquiry Proceedings to cancel the licence granted to the writ petitioner. The 2nd respondent, after offering an opportunity, cancelled the licence letter No. 92 of 1995, dated 28.4.1995, challenging the said cancellation, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition No. 7075 of 1995. In the said writ petition, this Court had declined to grant interim order.
8. At that stage, the writ petitioner filed the Writ petition No. 3701 of 1996, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent called upon the general public to take part in the auction for the right to collect the fees in the said market. this Court granted interim injunction, restraining the second respondent Panchayat, from confirming the auction, scheduled to be conducted on 15.3.1996. this Court also directed the Writ Petition to be posted on 23.5.1995.
9. Subsequently, the first respondent District Collector, by proceedings dated 21.6.1996, after taking into consideration the entire matter, directed the 2nd respondent Executive Officer to issue licence, in favour of the petitioner for the year 1996-97 on condition that the petitioner remits Rs. 25,615 per week for the remaining period of the year 1995-96. The first respondent Collector also directed that the Earnest Money Deposit by the writ petitioner be adjusted. The petitioner had accepted this proceedings of the District Collector and the conditions stipulated therein, without any remarks. The petitioner was collecting fees and remitted Rs. 25,615 according to the proceedings of the Collector, the petitioner is entitled to collect the fees from the year 1995-96 and not beyond the said period.
10. Based upon the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 21.6.1996, the 2nd respondent issued consequential proceedings, dated 21.6.1996 in which the 2nd respondent had clearly stated that the licence granted in favour of the petitioner will continue so long as the petitioner makes weekly payments regu-larly upto the year 1995-96.
11. Once again the 2nd respondent, by Proceedings dated 24.6.1996 permitted the writ petitioner to continue the collection for year ending 31.3.1997, subject to the condition set out therein. The petitioner accepted the conditions, imposed by the 2nd respondent on 25.6.1996 and had been collecting the fees from the market and remitting the amount as prescribed. As such the petitioner had been collecting the fees for the year ending with 31.3.1997 and not beyond that.
12. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner cannot claim any right to collect the fees on and from 1.4.1997.
13. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to the renewal of the privilege on the terms that he is a lessee of the market, so long as he is willing to pay the increased rate or at the revised rate of rent.
14. this Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent in detail. The respondents were also called upon to produce the files.
15. The auction notification dated the 13th January 1995 is for the period ending with 31.3.1996. As such the petitioner, who was the successful bidder for the year 1995-96 has no right to collect the fees beyond 31.3.1996, but for the subsequent extension. The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 5.4.1995 makes it clear that the petitioner had been permitted to collect fees for the remaining period of the year ending 31.3.1996. Subsequently, by the proceedings of the Collector dated 21.6.1996, the writ petitioner was permitted to collect the fees from the market for the year 1996-97, subject to the conditions set out therein and in terms of the agreement executed by him, As already pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that whatever privilege the petitioner had, will not ensure beyond 31.3.1997 and the right to collect the fees had to be auctioned by the 2nd respondent as per the existing statutory provisions.
16. The petitioner has no right as, it is a more privilege to collect the fees from the market, which is under the control and possession of the 2nd respondent local authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not sustain the plea that the petitioner is entitled for automatic renewal.
17. In this connection, this Court again and again, had taken the consistent view that the privilege to collect the fees from the persons who enter the market for exhibiting things is only a licence and not a lease and as such a licensee has no right at all, either for renewal of the licence or for collecting fees beyond the period for which he had been authorised. Srinivasan, J as he then, was had occasion to consider the right to collect the fees in respect of public convenience in a Municipal Bus Stand and had held in Pandaran Pandian v. The Commissioner Tirunelveli Municipality 1990 W.LR. 105 that it is only a licence for a specific period and it is not open to licensee to raise the contention that it is a lease and he cannot be disturbed. Following the decisions of this Court in V.S. Balakrishnan v. Pudukottai Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Pudukottai (1994) 1 L.W. 571 the learned Counsel rightly relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner Nagapattinam Municipalilty v. Palanivelu (1993) 2 L.W. 620 wherein the Bench has held that the contract being nonstatutory parties are governed by the terms of the contract. The Division Bench has also held that the privilege in question, in collection of fees from the Municipal Travellor's Bungalow, belonging to the Municipality in question has been conferred on the 1st respondent for a period of three years. It is a nonstatutory contract. If the termination is not in accordance with the terms of the lease and the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, there is a remedy open to the 1st respondent to approach a civil court.
18. The petitioner had been conferred with the privilege of collecting fees from the market for the period ending 31.3.1996 at the first instance. It has also been subsequently extended till 31.3.1997. The petitioner had submitted himself to the terms stipulated in the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd respondents, he cannot now contend that he should be permitted to continue the privilege, i.e., the unexpired portion of privilege, which he was entitled to, for the year 1995-96, such a contention does not deserve consideration.
19. All the writ petitions fail as the petitioner had no right at all and we cannot compel the respondents to allow him to continue the privilege of collecting fees from the market at any rate beyond 31.3.1997. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, finding that the petitioner had no right and it is too mush to claim any right beyond 31.3.1997, had confined himself, to the only contention that the petitioner's request for re-newal may be considered for an enhanced rate. Such a plea is not also permissible, because, it is more licence for the period stipulated and not a lease. It is well open to the respondents to conduct the auction.
20. The petitioner cannot seek to enforce a non-existent right and he cannot compel the respondents to renew the licence for any period beyond 31.3.1997. It is well open to the petitioner to take part in the auction and he has no right beyond 31.3.1997.
21. In these circumstances all the five writ petitions are dismissed with a cost of Rs. 3,000 each, to respondents 1 and 2.