Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 December, 2021
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
W.P.(MD) Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.11135 to 11137 and 15635 of 2021 in
W.P(MD)No.14197 of 2021
W.P.(MD) No.14197 2021:
1.C.Marimuthu
2.V.Varatharajan
3.K.Manjula
4.K.Gurumani
5.M.Arumugam
6.V.N.Y.Mohamed Ibrahim
7.S.Sharmila
8.R.Kulanthaisamy
9.K.Sekar
10.M.Sudha
11.S.Raju
12.A.Murugappan
13.R.Boopathy
14.M.Kolunthu
15.K.Stella Marry
16.K.K.K.Ismail
17.S.Rajendran
18.M.Babu
19.T.Sumithra
20.S.Arul Mani
21.S.Syed Ibrahim
22.R.Kasi Viswanathan
23.B.Manomozhi
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
24.R.Jegannathan
25.S.Sekar
26.M.Abdul Jabbar
27.R.Jeyaraj
28.Palanisamy
29.Valliyappan
30.N.P.Subramani
31.M.Abubbakar
32.M.Vennila
33.R.Mariammal
34.R.Santhosh
35.N.Senthil
36.P.Naranasam
37.B.Mohamed Sathik
38.S.Arumugam
39.R.Senthil
40.R.Tamilarasn
41.P.Meenasundari
42.G.Gopinath
43.G.Vijayakumar
44.S.Muruganatham
45.P.Senthamilselvi
46.B.M.K.Govindaramiyer
47.S.Thageerbeevi
48.R.Venkateshan
49.P.Alaguthevan
50.K.Syedmohamed
51.R.Raju
52.G.Vijayakumari
53.R.Balraj
54.C.Balasubramaniyan
55.R.Naseera Banu
56.T.Ramamoorthy
57.AS.Sherifabee
58.M.Alagappan
59.M.Jeibharathi
60.K.Mohanram
61.A.Nagendran
62.A.Hajamaideen
63.AN.Aswinkumar
64.S.Chellpandi .. Petitioners
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai -9.
2.The Tanjore Corporation,
Rep. by its Commissioner/Special Officer,
Aringar Anna Arangam,
RMH Road,
Tanjore District.
3.The Managing Director,
O/o. the Managing Director,
Tanore Smarty City Ltd.,
Corporation Building,
Aringar Anna Arangam,
RMH Road,
Tanore District.
4.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
O/o. the Director of Town and Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 02. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.8904/2021/MCA5, Dated
27.07.2021 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same and
consequently, forbear the respondent No.2 from Auctioning the shops
in Thanjavur Old Bus stand and Thiruvaiyaru Bus Stand, Thanjavur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
District without framing any scheme for rehabilitation and
accommodation of the Shopkeepers who are affected under the smart
city project.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent Nos.1 : Mr.R.Baskaran
&4 Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar
Government Pleader
For Respondent Nos.2 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
&3 Standing Counsel
W.P.(MD) No.19767 2021:
Chamber of Traders,
No.816, Jeeva Complex,
East Rampart,
Thanjavur 613 001,
Rep. by its Secretary
M.Anandan,
S/o.Munusamy .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Office of Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Thanjavur Corporation,
Thanjavur – 613 001. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to frame a
scheme for reallotment of shops in favour of the existing lessees
including the Members of the Petitioner Association on priority basis in
the shops reconstructed under Smart City Scheme in Thanjavur Old
Bus Stand and Thiruvaiyaru Bus Stand, Thanjavur District by
withdrawing the Tender Notification issued by the 3rd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.8904/2021/MCA-5 dated 27.07.2021, in consideration of the
representation submitted by the Petitioner Association, within a time
frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.F.Deepak
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar
Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by
The Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
These writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to frame a scheme for reallotment of shops in favour of
the existing lease holders, including the members of the Association. It
should be to give priority to the shop holders in the shops so
reconstructed under the Smart City Scheme.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that without
framing a scheme, an auction notice was issued. It was in ignorance of
the interim order passed by the Apex Court in a batch of Special Leave
Petitions in SLP(C)Nos.28623-28641 of 2019 [S.Sellapandi, etc. v.
The Commissioner cum Special Officer and others]. The order
therein was passed on 13.12.2019 asking the respondents to find out
whether after reconstruction of the shops, any priority or any scheme
can be framed for accommodating the petitioners for allotment of
shops. Ignoring the aforesaid interim order, auction notice was caused
giving no priority to the shop-holders after reconstruction under the
Smart City Scheme. A further reference to the final order of the Apex
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
Court in those petitions passed on 22.10.2021 has been made,
wherein while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, a direction was
given that if the original writ petitioners participated in the auction
along with other applicants as and when the shops were put to auction
and they were found to be equal to other participants/applicants with
respect to the newly constructed shops, which were reconstructed in
the building occupied by them, they should be given priority.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
judgment of the Apex Court referred to above should be applied to this
case also, but with only liberty to the petitioners, which would be to
allow them to participate in the auction or to give liberty to offer the
same amount as has been offered by the participants in the auction. It
is for the reason that the petitioners could not participate in the
auction because of the pendency of the matters before the Apex Court,
to which, reference has been given. In view of the above, the prayer is
now to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners
by permitting them to offer the equivalent amount offered by the
highest bidder in the auction and if the petitioners make an offer of the
equivalent amount, priority be given to them.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
4.The writ petitions have been opposed by the learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the Thanjavur Corporation. They submitted that
after the reconstruction of the shops under the Smart City Scheme, it
was put for auction to fix the fair price. The existing shop holders were
also permitted to participate there. However, if the petitioners failed to
participate in the auction, a direction of the nature sought now may
not be given. It is not only for the reason that it would be against the
direction given by the Apex Court, but otherwise it would unsettle the
auction conducted in August, 2021. They prayed to dismiss the Writ
Petitions.
5.We considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused
the records.
6.The Writ Petitions have been filed to seek a direction on the
respondents to frame a scheme or reallot the shops in favour of the
existing lease holders, especially, the members of the association and
that too, on priority basis. The shops have been reconstructed under
the Smart City Scheme. The very same issue came up for
consideration before the Apex Court in a batch of Writ Petitions, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
which, a reference has been made. Initially, an interim order was
passed to find out the possibility from the respondents about the
priority and also to frame a scheme. No direction was given therein to
frame a scheme or to give priority to the existing shop holders. The
Special Leave Petitions therein were concluded with the following
directions and it is quoted hereunder:
“We have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties at length. As such, we see no reason to interfere
with the impugned common judgment and order passed by
the High Court. Hence, the present Special Leave Petitions
stand dismissed. However, it is observed that in case the
respective original writ petitioner(s) herein participate in
the auction along with the other applicants as and when
the shops are put to auction and they are found to be
equal to the other participants/applicants with respect to
the newly constructed building which has been constructed
in the building occupied by the petitioners, they shall be
given the priority.
With this, all these Special Leave Petitions are
dismissed/disposed of.”
7.The order quoted above shows the dismissal of the Special
Leave Petitions before the Apex Court with reference to the shops
reconstructed under the Smart City Scheme. The prayer therein was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
not considered and they were dismissed, however, with a direction to
give priority to the existing shop holders if they participated in the
auction and were found to be equal to the other participants.
8.In the instant case, the prayer of the petitioners is to allow
them to give offer now while they did not participate in the auction
proceedings. The prayer aforesaid goes against the judgment and
direction of the Apex Court and thus, cannot be accepted. If any of
them participated in the auction and his/her offer is found matching to
the offer of the other highest bidder, then obviously, the judgment of
the Apex Court would be applied for giving priority to such petitioners
for allotment of shops, but it cannot give room to those, who failed to
participate in the auction proceedings.
9.The direction to frame the scheme for allotment of shops
cannot otherwise be given in the light of the judgment and direction
issued by the Apex Court in the case cited supra.
10.In substance, we dispose of these Writ Petitions with direction
to govern it by the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP(C)Nos.
28623-28641 of 2019, dated 22.10.2019. There shall be no order as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
to costs. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (P.S.N., J.)
21.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sj/pm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate /
litigant concerned.
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Office of Commissionerate of Municipal Administration,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Director of Town and Country Planning,
O/o. the Director of Town and Country Planning,
807, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 02.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
sj/pm
W.P.(MD) Nos.14197 and 19767 of 2021
21.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
