Madras High Court
Ep.Ragunathan vs Tiruchirappalli City Municipal ... on 16 June, 2021
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16.06.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
and
W.M.P(MD) Nos.7846 & 7847 of 2021
EP.Ragunathan ...Petitioner in W.P(MD) No.10121 of 2021
P.Krishnamoorthy ...Petitioner in W.P(MD) No.10124 of 2021
Vs.
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Bharathidasan Salai,
Cantonment,
Tiruchirappalli-620001. ... Respondent in both writ petitions
Common Prayer: These Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
culminated in the impugned proceedings in e.f.vz;.m1/2550/2010/_
dated 07.05.2021 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and issue
an order by way of Mandamus directing the respondent to reconsider the
petitioners representation dated 27.4.2021 on merits in accordance with
section 95(3) of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act 1994.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr.Shangar Murali
For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
Standing Counsel
(in both W.Ps)
COMMON ORDER
The issues involved in both the writ petitions are common and hence,
they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.
2.The petitioners have approached this Court, challenging the
impugned proceedings of the respondent corporation, wherein, the request
made by the petitioners for purchasing the property belonging to the
Corporation on an outright sale basis was rejected. The petitioners are the
lessees in the lease hold property belonging to the respondent Corporation.
According to the petitioners, they were prompt in payment of rent and there
are no arrears and the period of lease came to an end in April 2021.
Thereafter, a notice was issued by the Corporation to the petitioners to vacate
and hand over the premises.
3.The petitioners made an offer to pay the guideline value of the
property and purchase the property belonging to the respondent Corporation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
which was earlier leased to the petitioners. The said offer was rejected by the
respondent Corporation and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions
have been filed before this Court.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the
Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and as per the
G.O.Ms.No.730, dated 14.04.1976, there is absolutely no bar for the
Corporation to sell the property. There is a ban in selling the property only
with respect to some of the specified properties as found at clause 3(1) of the
Government Order and the present case does not fall under the banned
category. It was further submitted that the proposal for purchase of the
property by the petitioners will in fact benefit the respondent Corporation and
they will get more money than what they will receive as lease amount, even if
the property is brought for Public auction.
5.It is seen from the impugned order passed by the respondent that
heavy reliance is placed upon the Judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.
(MD).No.261 of 2021, dated 16.04.2021. This appeal was filed by the
respondent Corporation challenging the order passed in the writ petition,
wherein, a direction was given to the respondent Corporation to redetermine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
the rent offered by the association, which contained the lessees as its
members and to continue their lease in the same place. While deciding this
issue, the Division Bench passed the following order.
“7.In this appeal, we are being called upon
to test the correctness of the order of the Writ
Court. At the first instance, we were inclined to
allow the Writ Appeal in its entirety. However,
taking note of the fact that the traders have paid the
arrears to the association and the association in
turn paid the same to the respondent Corporation
to the tune of Rs.10.51 Crores, which fact has not
been disputed, we are not disturbing the order
passed by the Writ Court fixing the rent upto the
period 01.04.2021. However, we do not approve a
part of the findings rendered in paragraph No.8 of
the impugned order that after 01.04.2021, the
Corporation will offer the redetermined rent to the
members of the first respondent association and if
they are agreeable to pay the redetermined rent
they can continue in the same place. This
observation is beyond the jurisdiction of the Writ
Court. There are several decisions by the Hon'ble
Division Benches of this Court, which has
deprecated the practise of the Government to
extend the lease or licence to the same licensees by
enhancing the rent at the rate of 15% once in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
block period of three years and it has been held that
such a Government Order allowing licensees or
lessee to continue is against public interest and
therefore, the directions issued by the learned Writ
Court calls for interference. Having said so, we will
also have to interfere with paragraph 10 of the
impugned order because once redetermination has
taken place, it should be on par with the market
rate and the right to bid for the license or lease
should be made available to this public. Therefore,
recognising the legal heirs of the deceased
licensees as licensees of the respondent
Corporation does not arise and cannot be
permitted.
8.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is partly
allowed and the direction issued in paragraph 8,
directing re-determination of the rent and offering
the same to the first respondent association stands
vacated and stands deleted and the appellant
Corporation is directed to redetermine the rent in
accordance with law in a fair and transparent
manner and conduct public auction inviting offers
for grant of lease/licence from the public. For the
reasons stated above, paragraph 10 of the
impugned order is quashed, leaving it open to the
appellant to redetermine the rent as indicated
above. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
9.After we have dictated the order, learned
counsel for the first respondent/writ petitioner
submitted that the individual licensees should be
permitted to participate in the public auction that
will be called for by the Corporation. It goes
without saying that the individual licensees are
entitled to participate in the auction along with the
other willing participants because their status on
and after 01.04.2021 is as good as any other
participant. No costs.”
6.It is clear from the above order that the Division Bench has once
again deprecated the practice of extending the lease and directed the
respondent Corporation to redetermine the rent in accordance with law and
conduct the Public auction by inviting offers for grant of lease / licence from
the public. It is also made clear in this order that all are entitled to participate
in the public auction which includes even the existing lessees and licensees.
7.The petitioners who are also members of the association, thereafter,
made a representation to the effect that they are willing to purchase the lease
hold property in the prevailing market rate and they requested the respondent
Corporation not to proceed to take possession of the property till their request
is considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
8.In the considered view of this Court, the petitioners do not have any
legal right to compel the respondent Corporation to sell the lease hold
property to them. Even G.O.Ms.No.730, dated 14.04.1976 at Clause 3(1)(2)
clearly stipulates that there shall be a total ban to sell any immovable property
belonging to the Corporation without the leave of the Government. Even in
such a case, the Government will be entitled to grant such a permission,
where the property is required for public purpose.
9.Initially, the association wanted to put spokes and stop the public
auction that was proposed to be conducted by the respondent Corporation.
That attempt was thwarted by the Division Bench and a specific direction was
given to the Corporation to redetermine the rent and grant lease / licence only
after conducting a public auction, where, every one was permitted to
participate. The petitioners who are also the members of the association,
thereafter, have made one more attempt to stop the public auction by offering
to purchase the lease hold property. The respondent was absolutely right in
rejecting the claim made by the petitioners and there are absolutely no
grounds to interfere with the order passed by the respondent. This Court does
not find any merits in both the writ petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
10.In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.06.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
TM
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
TM
W.P.(MD).Nos.10121 and 10124 of 2021
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
