Madras High Court
R.Karuppannan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 April, 2022
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED : 22.03.2021
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.Nos.7740, 12740, 15928 and 17809 of 2020, 235,
1583, 4023, 4158 and 4233 of 2021
and
miscellaneous petitions
W.P.No. 7746 of 2020
R.Karuppannan ... petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3.The Commissioner,
Salem Municipal Corporation,
Salem – 636 001.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Ammapet Zone,
Salem Corporation, Salem -636 003.
1/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
5.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
6.The Secretary,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -9.
7.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City,
Salem. ... respondents
[R5 to R7 suo-motu impleaded
vide order dated 22.02.2021]
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to forthwith allot a
temporary shop to the petitioner at Salem Subash
Chandra Bose Ground, near old bus stand, Salem and
consequently, direct the respondents to allot a
permanent shop at VOC market after completion of the
new building by the Salem Corporation under the Salem
City Scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj
For Respondent : Mr.Kumaresh Babu,
Nos.3 & 4 AAG, assisted
by Mr.S.Sathish, St.C.
For Respondent : Mr.M.Elumalai,
Nos.5 to 7 AGP
:Mr.N.Suresh
Amicus Curie
COMMON ORDER
All these writ petitions are filed in respect
of Flower, Vegetable and Meat Market run by Salem
Municipal Corporation [in short 'the Corporation'].
Therefore, these writ petitions are heard together
and disposed of by way of this common order.
2.The Corporation to facilitate the general
public to meet their needs and to enable the farmers
and vendors for vending vegetables, flowers, fruits,
meat, etc.., maintains a market viz., V.O.C Market
[in short VOC market] in Chinna Kadai Veethi, Salem.
3.The farmers and vendors entering into
VOC market, Salem are supposed to pay following toll
fee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
4.The Corporation floated tender in
Na.Ka.No.L8/8888/2018, dated 07.07.2020, for granting
licence for collection of the above toll fee in
VOC market for the year 2020-2021. As per the tender
conditions, the lease would be for a period of one
year and subsequently it would be extended for a
period of three years with an enhanced lease amount
of 5% for the second and third years as per the
Government order in G.O(Ms)78, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department dated
25.05.2009.
5.One Murugan, writ petitioner in
W.P.No.15928 of 2020, participated in the said tender
and as he quoted the highest bid amount,
i.e., Rs.12,00,991/- per week, he was granted licence
to collect toll fee for the year 2020-2021.
Murugan will herein after be referred to as
'licensee'.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
6.The Salem City is selected under the Smart
Cities Mission Scheme. The Corporation has decided to
construct a new market with 240 shops at a cost of
Rs.14.58 crore under the Smart Cities Mission Scheme,
by demolishing the existing building in
VOC market. As an interim arrangement,
the Corporation established makeshift shops on the
Subash Chandra Bose ground [in short 'SCB market'],
near old bus stand, Salem and provided space to the
VOC market vendors and farmers, in the makeshift
shops on SCB ground.
7.Writ petition in W.P.No.7746 of 2020 was
filed by one Karuppannan as against the Corporation
that he was selling flowers in VOC market for several
years, but he was not provided any space in
SCB market. Alleging that the shops were allotted for
extraneous consideration, the petitioner sought a
mandamus directing the Corporation to allot him a
makeshift shop in SCB market and to allot him a
permanent shop in VOC market.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
8.Karuppannan has also filed another petition
in W.P.No.12740 of 2020 for a mandamus, directing the
Corporation to remove 141 excess shops, which were
allotted to strangers in SCB market by considering
his representation dated 25.08.2020. It is also
stated in the writ petition that in the VOC market
there were only 185 shops [128 vegetable shops and 57
flower shops], but in the SCB market, 326 makeshift
shops were established by adding 141 new shops, which
were allotted to strangers by getting rupees seven
lakh from each of them by some of the Corporation
officials, through the toll collecting agency.
9.Writ petition in W.P.No.15928 of 2020 is
filed by licensee Murugan as against the final notice
in Na.Ka.No.L8/2640/2020, dated 24.10.2020 issued by
the Corporation, wherein the Assistant Commissioner
of the Corporation citing several irregularities of
the licensee in collecting the toll fee and allotting
the shops, called upon his explanation in respect of
the complaints and reports on the dailies and medias.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
10.Writ petition in W.P.No.17809 of 2020 is
filed by one R.M.Raju and 140 others claiming to be
flower vendors in VOC market, seeking for a mandamus
directing the Corporation to reimburse the excess
toll amount collected by licensee and for a direction
to the licensee to collect the toll fee as per the
guidelines issued in the year 2016–2017.
It is stated in the writ petition that the licensee
is supposed to collect Rs.20/- for a big shop and
Rs.15 for a small shop, but the licensee is
collecting Rs.100/- for each shop through goondas on
threat and coercion. Similarly, the licensee is
supposed to collect Rs.10/- per basket as entry fee,
but he is collecting Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- according
to his whims and fancies. Therefore, on behalf of VOC
Market Vendors Welfare Association a representation
was submitted to the Commissioner of Corporation on
12.09.2020, but no action was taken. Therefore, this
writ petition is filed with the above prayer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
11.Writ petition in W.P.No.235 of 2020 is
filed by one Prabakaran and 7 others for a mandamus
to direct the Corporation to reimburse the excess
toll amount collected by licensee and for a direction
to the licensee to collect the fixed toll. It is
stated that the licensee is collecting exorbitant
toll forcibly than the fixed one.
12.Writ petition in W.P.No.1583 of 2021 is
filed by the licensee Murugan as against the order
of Corporation in Na.Ka.No.L8/8888/2018,
dated 05.01.2020, in and by which, the licence
granted to him was cancelled by the Corporation. This
writ petition is filed that the impugned order of
cancellation was passed based on certain vague
allegations without assigning any reasons and also
without considering the pendency of the writ petition
in W.P.No.15928 of 2020, filed by him as against the
final show cause notice, wherein this Court, while
entertaining the said writ petition has granted an
interim direction to the Corporation, not to pass any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
final orders till the disposal of the writ petition.
However, the impugned order came to be passed,
during the pendency of the earlier writ petition.
The Corporation has cancelled the licence in an
arbitrary manner and such an act is contemptuous one.
13.Writ petition in W.P.No.4023 of 2021 is
filed by one Parvathi for a mandamus directing the
Corporation to allot temporary shop to her in
SCB market and also to allot permanent shop in
VOC market, once new VOC market is constructed.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the
Corporation Commissioner has allotted a shop to the
petitioner after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/-
through third respondent. The licensee is demanding
rupees ten lakh for each shop claiming that he has
spent rupees twenty crore for obtaining licence.
Since the petitioner was denied entry into the
market, she is vending flowers in basket, outside the
premises, where licensee is collecting Rs.300/- or
Rs.500/- per day.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
14.Writ petition in W.P.No.4158 of 2021 is
filed by one S.Nizaruddin and 20 others seeking
direction to allow the petitioners to run their shops
in the allotted shops in VOC market, by preventing
the unauthorised persons, who are occupying the
petitioners' shops. It is stated in the writ petition
that the petitioners are allottees of shops in
VOC daily market. However, some strangers under the
guise of Flower Merchant Sangam, have occupied the
said shops and preventing the petitioners from doing
their business.
15.Writ petition in W.P.No.4233 of 2021 is
filed by one K.Selvakumar and sixteen others seeking
a mandamus for a direction to allow the petitioners
to run their shops in the allotted shops in
VOC market, by preventing the unauthorised persons
occupying the petitioners' shops. It is stated in the
writ petition that the petitioners are allottees of
shops in VOC daily market. However, some strangers
under the guise of Flower Merchant Sangam, have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
occupied the said shops and preventing the
petitioners from doing their business.
16.Some of the above writ petitions are filed
by the farmers and vendors that they have been
vending flowers and vegetables, etc.., for several
years in the VOC market, but unfortunately, they have
not been allotted or provided space in the temporary
SCB market. The licensee and the Corporation
officials are demanding huge money to allot them
shops in the SCB market. It is also contended that in
fact, in the VOC market there were only 185 shops
[128 vegetable shops and 57 flower shops], but in the
SCB market, 326 shops were established by including
141 new shops, which were allotted to strangers by
getting rupees seven lakh from each of them by some
of the Corporation officials, through the toll
collecting agency.
17.Some writ petitions are filed that though
the petitioners were allottees of shops in the VOC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
Market, they are not allowed inside the market to do
their business.
18.The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15938 and
1583 of 2021 are filed by the licensee Murugan as
against the final show cause notice issued by the
Corporation and the order cancelling the licence
respectively.
19.The Corporation on receipt of several
complaints as against the licensee that he has been
collecting exorbitant toll from the farmers and
vendors, issued show cause notices and cancelled the
licence.
20.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the licensee submits that the Corporation proceeded
against the licensee based on vague allegations.
Though the Corporation in the final notice dated
24.10.2020, has referred to several earlier notices,
the same were not served on the licensee. Though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
Corporation alleges that there are 88 complaints
received against the licensee, the complaints 1 to 72
relate to different period and not during this
licensee's period, the complaints 77 and 78 are
without any allegation as against the licensee and
one of the complaints referred to is even without any
signature.
21.The learned Senior Counsel further submits
only in order to expel the licensee, the show cause
notice and the cancellation order were issued.
This entire process took place within a short span of
one month. The impugned order of cancellation does
not reflect the reply submitted by the licensee to
the show cause notice. As per clause 44 of the
Tender Conditions, if any violation is found,
the Corporation shall impose only a sum of Rs.250/-
as penalty.
22.The learned Senior Counsel also pointed
out that earlier a writ petition in W.P.No.15928 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
2020 was filed by the licensee as against the show
cause notice dated 24.10.2020 issued by the
Corporation and this Court on 06.11.2020 has also
directed the Corporation not to pass any final
orders, pending the writ petition. However, without
considering such a direction, the subsequent
cancellation order was passed by the Corporation.
Moreover, the licensee has engaged several employees
and invested huge amount for collection of toll fee,
but the Corporation without providing sufficient
opportunity and without any valid reason cancelled
the licence, based on mala fide and also in an
unilateral manner, which will have a serious
consequences. Therefore, the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
23.The learned Senior Counsel has also relied
on the following decisions:
i) Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs.
Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors, reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
(2010) 9 SCC 496, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“46. Even then in the case of R.
v. Civil Service Appeal Board, ex parte
Cunningham reported in (1991) 4 All ER
310, Lord Donaldson, Master of Rolls,
opined very strongly in favour of
disclosing of reasons in a case where
the Court is acting in its discretion.
The learned Master of Rolls said: ...It
is a corollary of the discretion
conferred upon the board that it is
their duty to set out their reasoning in
sufficient form to show the principles
on which they have proceeded. Adopting
Lord Lane CJ's observations (in R v.
Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex p Khan
(Mahmud) [1983] 2 All ER 420 at 423,
(1983) QB 790 at 794-795), the reasons
for the lower amount is not obvious. Mr.
Cunningham is entitled to know, either
expressly or inferentially stated, what
it was to which the board were
addressing their mind in arriving at
their conclusion. It must be obvious to
the board that Mr. Cunningham is left
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
with a burning sense of grievance. They
should be sensitive to the fact that he
is left with a real feeling of
injustice, that having been found to
have been unfairly dismissed, he has
been deprived of his just desserts (as
he sees them).
47. The learned Master of Rolls
further clarified by saying:
...thus, in the particular
circumstances of this case, and without
wishing to establish any precedent
whatsoever, I am prepared to spell out
an obligation on this board to give
succinct reasons, if only to put the
mind of Mr. Cunningham at rest. I would
therefore allow this application.”
ii)Krishna Mohan Medical College and Hospital
and Ors.Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, reported in
(2017) 15 SCC 719, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
20. In the predominant factual
setting, noted hereinabove, the approach of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
the Respondents is markedly incompatible
with the essence and import of the proviso
to Section 10A(4) mandating against
disapproval by the Central Government of
any scheme for establishment of a college
except after giving the person or the
college concerned a reasonable opportunity
of being heard. Reasonable opportunity of
hearing which is synonymous to 'fair
hearing', it is not longer res integra, is
an important ingredient of audi alteram
partem Rule and embraces almost every
facet of fair procedure. The Rule of 'fair
hearing' requires that the affected party
should be given an opportunity to meet the
case against him effectively and the right
to fair hearing takes within its fold a
just decision supplemented by reasons and
rationale. Reasonable opportunity of
hearing or right to 'fair hearing' casts a
steadfast and sacrosanct obligation on the
adjudicator to ensure fairness in
procedure and action, so much so that any
remiss or dereliction in connection
therewith would be at the pain of
invalidation of the decision eventually
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
taken. Every executive authority empowered
to take an administrative action having
the potential of visiting any person with
civil consequences must take care to
ensure that justice is not only done but
also manifestly appears to have been
done.”
24.The learned Counsel appearing for the
farmers and vendors referred to the tender/ bid
amount, in VOC market in the past, which reads as
follows:
Sl.No Period Licence amount
per week in Rs
1 2013-2014 1,45,000/-
2 2014-2015 With 5% enhancement
3 2015-2016 With 5% enhancement
4 2016-2017 3,03,386/-
5 2017-2018 With 5% enhancement
6 2018-2019 With 5% enhancement
7 2020-2021 12,00,991/-
25.The learned Counsel by referring to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
above table, submits that there is a steep increase
in the current year bid amount when compared to
last year's bid amount. Such a huge bid amount was
offered by the licensee only in order to make a
whooping profit out of the licence by illegal
allotment of shops in the proposed new VOC market and
by collecting excess toll fee. The licensee taking
advantage of the shifting of VOC market to SCB
ground, inducted 240 vendors by collecting rupees ten
lakh from each vendor. He is also collecting
exorbitant amount as entry fee and rent from the
vendors and farmers and preventing the persons,
who have objected to his illegalities, from doing
their business by not allotting any shops to them.
26.The learned Counsel for the Corporation
submits that during the month of July 2020,
the Corporation floated tender for collection of toll
charges in the VOC Flower, Vegetable and Fish
markets. One Murugan, writ petitioner in
W.P.Nos.15928 of 2020 and 1583 of 2021 has been
declared as successful bidder and the licence was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
granted to him on 15.08.2020 for collection of toll
charges, commencing from 16.08.2020 to 15.08.2021.
As per the guidelines, the daily rent in the market
for a small shop is fixed as Rs.10/- and for a big
shop is fixed as Rs.20, instead of collecting Rs.10/-
and Rs.20/- he has collected Rs.100/- and Rs.200/- or
Rs.300/- from vendors. Several complaints were
received by the Corporation from the vendors and
farmers and there were also news reports in the
dailies and medias. Therefore, the Corporation has
issued notice to the petitioner on 24.08.2010,
01.10.2020, 03.10.2020, 05.10.2020, 09.10.2020,
13.10.2020, 17.10.2020, 20.10.2020 and finally
on 24.10.2020. The final notice dated 24.10.2010 was
challenged by the licensee in W.P.No.15928 of 2020
before this Court. However, the licensee submitted
his reply on 30.10.2020 and in that reply he has not
denied the allegations levelled against him, admitted
the same and also stated that has has corrected/
rectified the violations pointed out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
27.The learned Counsel further submits that
although the licensee alleges that the earlier
notices were not served on him, in his reply dated
30.10.2020 he has referred to the earlier notices.
Since the reply of the licensee was not satisfactory,
the licence was cancelled by order dated 05.11.2020.
While so, this Court in W.P.No.15928 of 2020 on
06.11.2020 on the submission of the licensee that he
had not submitted any reply to the notice dated
24.10.2020, directed the Corporation not to pass any
final orders till the disposal of the writ petition.
The reply offered by the licensee on 30.10.2020 was
suppressed before this Court and this Court granted
time to the licensee to submit his explanation.
Even before issuance of such a direction by this
Court on 06.11.2020, the licence of the petitioner
was cancelled on 05.11.2020 itself and therefore,
there is no violation of orders of this Court as
alleged by the licensee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
28.The learned Counsel further submits that
the licensee has collected nearly ten fold increased
toll fee than the fixed one and harassed the farmers
and vendors. Therefore, he is not only acting against
the farmers and vendors, but also as against the
public interest and also against the terms and
conditions of the licence. The Corporation has also
issued several show cause notices and the licensee
replied only on 30.10.2020 and even in that reply he
has not denied the allegations rather, admitted the
same and claimed to have rectified the same.
This reply itself is an admission to the guilt by the
licensee and therefore, the licensee has obviously
violated the tender conditions and the collection of
excess toll fee is an extreme violation and
therefore, the corporation has passed an order, dated
05.11.2020 by cancelling the licence.
29.The learned Counsel for the Corporation
has also relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
Court in State of UP vs Sudhir Kumar Singh and
Others, reported in 2020 SCC 847, wherein it was held
as follows:
“39.An analysis of the aforesaid
judgments thus reveals:
i. Natural justice is flexible tool in
the hands of the judiciary to reach out in
fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of
audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself
without more, lead to the conclusion that
prejudice is hereby caused.
ii. Where procedural and / or
substantive provisions of law embody the
principle of natural justice, their
infraction per se does not lead to invalidity
of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice
must be caused to the litigant, except in the
case of a mandatory provision of law which is
conceived not only in individual interest,
but also in public interest.
iii. No prejudice is caused to the
person complaining of the breach of natural
justice where such a person does not dispute
the case against him or it. This can happen
by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or
admission of facts, in cases in which the
Court finds on facts that no real prejudice
can therefore be said to have been caused to
the person complaining of the breach of
natural justice.
iv.In cases where facts can be stated
to be admitted or indisputable and only one
conclusion is possible, the Court does not
pass futile orders of setting aside or remand
when there is, in fact, no prejudice is
caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the
Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case,
and not by the authority who denies natural
justice to a person.
v.The prejudice exception must be more
than mere apprehension or even a reasonable
suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a
matter of fact, or be based upon a definite
inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing
from the on observance of natural justice.”
30.This Court paid its anxious consideration
to the rival submissions and perused the materials
placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
31.Market is a place meant for selling and
buying goods by farmers and the general public.
It would be apposite to refer to Sections 6 and 7 and
17 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Regulation) Act, 1987, which read as follows:
“6.Establishment of Market:
(1)Every market committee shall establish
in the notified area such number of
markets providing facilities, as the
Government may, from time to time, direct
for the purchase and sale of the notified
agricultural produce
(2) The Government shall, as soon
as may be, after the establishment of a
market committee under sub-section (1),
declare, by notification, the area of the
market and such area around the market as
may be specified in the notification to be
a notified market area for the purposes of
this Act in respect of any notified
agricultural produce
7. Establishment of special and
subsidiary markets.- (1) Notwith
standing anything contained in section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
6, where the Government are satisfied
that on account of the specialized
nature of marketing of any agricultural
produce, like fresh fruits, fresh
vegetables, or wool, in any area, it is
expedient to ensure the efficient
regulation of the marketing of such
agricultural produce in such area the
Government may establish,- (a) in such
area special market for such
agricultural produce, and (b)
independent market committee in
relation to such special market
notwithstanding that such area falls
within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of any other market
committee or committees already
functioning in the area. and every such
special market and independent market
committee shall be established and
constituted in the same manner in which
a market and a market committee is
established and constituted under this
Act. (2) Where a special market and
independent market committee are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
established under sub-section (1), the
Government may, by notification,
declare that the provisions of this Act
shall with such modification,
restrictions or limitations as may by
specified in the notification, apply in
relation to such special market and
independent market committee. (3) The
market committee any, with the previous
approval in writing of the Government
establish, within the notified market
area, such number of subsidiary markets
as may be necessary providing such
facilities as the Government may, from
time to time direct, for the purchase
sale of the notified agricultural
produce. (4) (a) The Government may, be
notification, declare their intention
to direct the independent market
committee, or as the case may be, the
market committee concerned to close
such special market or subsidiary
market as may be specified in the
notification. The notification shall
state that any objection or suggestion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
which may be received by the
Government, within such period as may
be specified in the notification, shall
be considered by it. A copy of the
notification shall also be published in
such other manner as may be prescribed.
17. Market committee to be a local
authority.- Every market committee shall
be deemed to be a local authority for the
purpose of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(Central Act I of 1894) and the Local
authorities Loans Act, 1914 (Central Act
IX of 1914”
32.The above provisions, mandate that every
local body has to establish a market, for essential
commodities, for the benefit of consumers, farmers
and vendors.
33.The Salem Municipal Corporation is also
maintaining a market, namely, VOC daily market at
Chinnakadai veethi, Salem. Salem city has also been
selected under the Smart Cities Mission Scheme.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
Under this scheme the Corporation has decided to
construct a new building with 240 shops by
demolishing the existing VOC market building. As an
interim arrangement, the VOC market was shifted to
SCB ground.
34.The Corporation has fixed the toll fee as
referred to in paragraph No.3 of this order.
35.The Corporation has leased out the right
of collecting the toll charges in VOC Market,
to private party. The licensee Murugan writ
petitioner in W.P.Nos.15928 of 2021 and 1583 of 2021
participated in the tender floated by the Corporation
for the year 2020-2021 by affording bid amount of
Rs.12,00,991/- per week. The licensee is permitted to
collect a sum of Rs.10/- for small shops and Rs.20/-
for big shops. The licence was granted on 15.08.2020
and the period of licence is 16.08.2020 to
15.08.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
36.While so, the Corporation received several
complaints as against the licensee in collecting the
toll fee that he is collecting Rs.100/- and Rs.200/-,
instead of collecting Rs.10 and Rs.20/- and also
received complaints that when the VOC market was
shifted to SCB ground temporarily, the licensee has
inducted 240 new vendors by collecting a sum of
rupees ten lakh each from those new vendors. Some of
the vendors have also approached this Court that
licensee has not permitted them inside the market.
Therefore, the Corporation issued several show cause
notices calling for the explanation of the licensee.
The licensee has also offered his explanation to the
said show cause notice. Being not satisfactory with
the explanation, the licence was cancelled by the
Corporation.
37.The object of establishing market is to
provide space for farmers and vendors to sell
vegetables, flowers, meat etc.., and also to fulfil
the needs of the general public. The collection of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
toll fee from the market has to be regulated in the
interest of public at large. This object is defeated
when it is leased out to private parties.
The Corporation which is not in a position to collect
the toll fee, cannot be expected to monitor the
lessee effectively, whether they are collecting the
toll charges in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the licence. The space is almost
allotted by the political bigwigs and money lenders
are collecting exorbitant interest. Most of the
vendors are even now depending on the money lenders
and are paying exorbitant interest to these money
lenders. Though Money Laundering Act was enacted in
the year 2002, it appears that the menace of money
laundering is not fully eradicated. The poor farmers
and vendors may not be in a position to fight against
the mighty money lenders.
38.The data in respect of the bid amount
available in this case itself would reflect the real
interest behind this licence. The VOC market was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
leased out for collection of toll fee and the license
amount for the past three times, is as follows:
Sl.No Period Licence amount
per week in Rs
1 2013-2014 1,45,000/-
2 2014-2015 With 5% enhancement
3 2015-2016 With 5% enhancement
4 2016-2017 3,03,386/-
5 2017-2018 With 5% enhancement
6 2018-2019 With 5% enhancement
7 2020-2021 12,00,991/-
39.It is to be noted that for the year 2020-
2021 the licensee has afforded to pay
a sum of Rs.12,00,991/- per week, which is nearly
400% more than the previous three years' licence
amount.
40.It is seen from records that this Court by
order dated 25.01.2021 directed the Corporation to
collect the toll in the market through Corporation
staff and to file a report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
41.Accordingly, the Corporation collected
toll charges through its staff from 25.01.2021 to
23.02.2021 and collected Rs.13,54,326/- during the
period. Even the Corporation could only collect
Rs.13,54,326/- for a month, whereas the licensee
Murugan was able to collect the said amount in a week
and afforded to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,991/- per week
to the Corporation, which is obviously, excluding the
expenses he and profit.
42.The above collection of toll fee by the
Corporation and by the licensee would itself expose
the real truth and the real interest behind the
licence. Either these lessees may collect exorbitant
toll charges as alleged by some writ petitioners or
may get benefit of money lending with exorbitant
interest to the farmers and vendors entering the
market.
43.For getting more assistance in this
matter, this Court appointed one Mr.N.Suresh Kumar,
Advocate as Amicus Curie.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
44.The petitioners in W.P.Nos.15928, 17809,
of 2020 and 235 of 2021 insisted the learned
Amicus Curie to visit the the Market in Salem for
having an idea for arriving at a solution.
Accordingly, the learned Amicus Curies has also
visited the market on 13.02.2021 in the presence of
the writ petitioners and other officials and
submitted a detailed report, dated 22.02.2021 that
two types of collections are followed. One from the
vendors and other is from the farmers. The vendors
are charged Rs.60/- per shop and the farmers are
charged Rs.30/- per gunny bag, weighing 50 Kgs.
On enquiry, the vendors and farmers, uniformly
alleged that prior to the orders of this Court dated
21.10.2020, the licensee was collecting Rs.100/- per
shop and Rs.5/- per Kg for a day for the flower
basket. Some of the farmers have also reported that
Rs.8/- was collected for a garland. The learned
Amicus has also collected different types of receipts
issued by the licensee. The receipts were issued for
Rs.100/- and Rs.200/- etc.., After the Corporation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
started collecting, in pursuance of the orders of
this Court, only Rs.60/- and Rs.30/- were collected
from vendors and farmers respectively.
45.The learned Amicus further reports that
three types of complaints were preferred to the
Commissioner of the Corporation that the Association
for the Welfare of the Flower Market Vendors are not
allowing farmers inside the Flower Market. Another
part of dispute is that the persons claiming to be
farmers are not real farmers and they are only
commission agents. The third part is that the
licensee is collecting over and above the charge
fixed by the Corporation and the Corporation
officials allotted shops around 70 to 80 persons to
their whims and fancies.
46.The learned Amicus has made certain
recommendations in his report. The relevant portions
are extracted hereunder :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
“17.The market place in Salem
especially the flower vending activity is
meant only for the farmers to vend their
products to the common public in the place
daily allotted to them and thereby make
them to eke out their livelihood. On the
other hand as I find the farmers have to
only deliver their products at the entrance
of the market and the persons who are
claiming to be vendors occupy the spaces
and thereby vend the products. There is no
system actually in place to only allow the
farmers to carry on their vending activity
to sell away their products. The whole
complexity of the issue will only go to
show the entire market place has been
excessively commercialised not by the
farmers but by others and thereby each of
the group competing to win over the other.
I only suggest that unless clear statutory
guidelines are in place, the entire market
place will continue to be highly
commercialised and the common public will
be exorbitantly charged in comparison to
the actual price the farmers will receive
at the end of the day.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
18.I also find because of the space
constraint also each of the group take
advantage of the situation and fleece
exorbitantly in several lakhs for allotment
of the space. All the above clearly go to
show that the actual farmers have no place
to vend in the market. The interest of the
farmers should be kept in mind as supreme
by statutory authorities. But actually the
officials are groping in darkness and is
not able to do and deliver the goods to the
farmers. All it is because of absence of
clear and effectively statutory guidelines
which will ultimately benefit the farmers.
Because of the huge profit each group is
claiming to make, I wish to suggest the
following measures can be adopted by the
Statutory authorities which will ultimately
be in the interest of the farmers.
A) The Corporation of Salem will
have to make necessary and adequate space
for the vending activity. At present it is
stated to be that there are only 174 stalls
with different measures commencing from 4 X
4 ft. Because of the inadequate shopping
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
spaces encroachments come out even in the
road side area.
B. There should be clear statutory
guidelines that the shops/ stalls are fully
utilized by the actual farmers and not by
commission agents.
C.The vending activity can be
regulated in such a manner that the market
place area is not infested by the persons,
who wanted to compete each other in
allotting the spaces by collecting huge
amount.
D. There should be uniform
guidelines for the purpose of collection of
toll and the same cannot be go beyond the
actual fee fixed by the Corporation and in
this regard suitable mechanism can be in
place for preventing excessive collection.
E.The Corporation should also make
effective guidelines to prevent money
profiteering activity by others in the
market area.
F.The collection of tolls can be
digitised so that the actual amount is
collected and ultimately the Corporation
will also realise to the actual collection
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
and the Common public will also resultantly
benefitted.
G. There should be transparency in
the allotment of shops so that the daily
vendor will not be at the mercy of lobbying
their own group of people for allotment of
space.”
47.In this case Corporation has received
several complaints from the vendors that the licensee
has collected exorbitant charges from the farmers and
vendors and also illegally allotted shops to
strangers. On receipt of such complaints, the
Corporation has issued several notices to the
licensee calling upon his explanation. Accordingly,
the licensee has offered his explanation, however, he
not denied the allegations made thereon and moreover,
he claimed that he has rectified / corrected the
defects pointed out. The Corporation being
dissatisfied over the explanation, cancelled his
licence. Though the licensee has filed a writ
petition, against the final show cause notice dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
24.10.2020 that the earlier notices were not served
upon him and alleges that despite the orders of this
Court not to pass any final orders, the Corporation
cancelled the licence, according to the learned
Counsel for the Corporation, the licensee submitted a
reply on 30.10.2010, but this fact has not been
placed by the licensee on 06.11.2021, when this Court
directed the Corporation not to pass final orders,
pending the writ petition. Therefore, the grounds
raised by the licensee are not acceptable.
The licensee has also not denied the allegations and
claims that he has rectified the same. This itself
would amount the admission of guilt. It is to be
noted that collection of excess toll charges is
violative of clause 37 of the terms and conditions of
the licence and the licence is liable to be cancelled
in view of the said clause. Since the licensee
misused the licence by collecting exorbitant toll
amount, the respondent Corporation has rightly
cancelled the licence. This Court does not find any
reason to interfere with the order cancelling the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
licence granted to the licensee. Therefore,
the writ petition in W.P.No.1583 of 2021, filed
against the order of cancellation of licence is
liable to be dismissed.
48.Though the earlier writ petition in
W.P.No.15928 of 2020 is filed by the licensee as
against the final show cause dated 24.10.2010,
subsequently on 05.11.2020, the license itself was
cancelled by the Corporation which is evident from
the discussion above and the subsequent cancellation
order is also challenged in W.P.No.1583 of 2021,
which is held liable to be dismissed. In view of the
subsequent developments, this Court is of the view
that no further order is required to be passed in
this writ petition.
49.In the light of the above discussion, the
writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15928 and 1583 of 2021
filed by the licensee are dismissed.
50.The other writ petitions are filed by the
petitioners claiming to be vendors and they are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
permitted by the licensee in the SCB market.
The licensee disputed the same that they are not the
real vendors at VOC market. However, there are
allegations that the licensee inducted 240 new
vendors by obtaining rupees ten lakh from each vendor
and illegally allotted shops in SCB market to them,
by creating false records with the help of the
corporation officials.
51.In this connection, the Commissioner of
Corporation, Salem shall constitute a committee of
experts/ officials, so as to ensure that the farmers
and vendors alone get the shops allotted in the
market and ensure that they are not exploited by
middleman or by money lenders. The petitioners
in W.P.Nos.7740, 12740 and 17809 of 2020, 235, 4023,
4158 and 4233 of 2021 shall approach the said
Committee to be constituted by the Commissioner of
Corporation, Salem and the Committee shall take a
decision as expeditiously as possible in respect of
their grievances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
52.Accordingly, the writ petitions in
W.P.Nos.7740, 12740 and 17809 of 2020, 235, 4023,
4158 and 4233 of 2021 are disposed of on the above
terms. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
53.Before conclusion, this Court is inclined
proceed further as follows;
54.The farmers are the backbone of this
nation. India is basically an agricultural country.
The great Tamil Scholar, Tiruvalluvar in his couplet
No.1033 has emphasised the importance of agriculture,
even before 2000 years, as follows:
“cGJz;L thH;thnu thH;thh;kw; bwy;yhk;
bjhGJz;L gpd;bry; gth;/
Translated version
They alone live who live by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
agriculture; all others lead a
cringing, dependant life”.
55.Agriculture is source of livelihood;
contributes to national income; source of food
supply; plays vital role in industrial development;
has commercial importance; source of government
revenue; plays major role in economic planning;
56.We have witnessed several reports that the
farmers are not having adequate facilities to store
their hard grown produce and they never got an
opportunity of fixing the price to their own produce.
The farmers are getting a meagre profit of their
produce, whereas traders and middlemen are getting
the major chunk, who are not playing any role in
cultivation at all.
57.Considering the very importance of the
agriculture, for the welfare of the agriculturists,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
Both Central and State Governments are taking several
efforts by introducing and implementing several
beneficial schemes, as follows:
1.National Mission For Sustainable
Agriculture (NMSA); 2.Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima
Yojana (PMFBY); 3.Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai
Yojana (PMKSY); 4.Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana
(PKVY); 5. Micro Irrigation Fund scheme; 6. Mission
Organic Value Chain Development for North Eastern
Region (MOVCDNER); 7. E-NAM; 8. Kisan Credit Card
(KCC); 9. Soil Health Card; 10. PM Kisan Samman Nidhi
Yojana; 11.PM Kisan Urja Suraksha Evam Utthaan
Mahabhiyaan
58.The Government is spending several crore
of rupees for implementation of the above schemes
every year. In the field of agriculture, marketing
determines the value of the agricultural product in
terms of money and delivers them to the final
customer. Most of the farmers sell their produce
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
through village level markets, fairs, Mandies,
Co-operative Societies etc.,. In the above process of
agricultural marketing, the middlemen exploit farmers
as well as consumers. Generally, the middlemen and
wholesale businessmen purchase the agricultural
products from the farmers at a lower price. They also
get the commission from the farmers for the
transactions made. In turn, fresh vegetables and
fruits purchased at the lower price from the farmers
are sold out to retail businessmen at higher price
and the retail businessmen sell those agricultural
products further at higher price to the consumers.
As a result, the farmers get only the lower price for
their produce, whereas the consumers have to pay
higher price for the same produce and the farmers are
not getting and even if they get any profit, it is
not enough for them to continue the cultivation and
because they are not having adequate money, they are
dependant on money lenders for exorbitant interest.
59.In order to eliminate the middlemen
between farmers and consumers, to provide space to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
the farmers to sell their goods and in order to
derive more benefits to the farmers as well as
consumers, the Government of Tamilnadu introduced a
new welcoming concept, namely “UZHAVAR SANTHAI-
FARMERS MARKET” in the year 1999. Some of the objects
of the scheme are as follows:
• To facilitate direct contact between the farmers
and public.
• To provide fresh vegetables and fruits at
reasonable price daily without any interference
of middlemen.
• To give full satisfaction to the farmers and
public.
60.However, it is very sad to mention that in
due course, the spaces provided under this scheme
were also occupied by the traders under the guise of
farmers. Of course, the success of any scheme lies
with the officials, who are implementing it.
61.The income / revenue received by the local
bodies from the markets is very meagre. However, for
the benefit of few licensees, the markets are leased
out, as if it is augmenting the revenue of the local
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
bodies. The number of agriculturists and the area of
cultivation are decreasing day by day in this
country. Therefore, at least in order to sustain the
same without getting worse from today's scenario,
and also taking into account this case as an eye
opener, the Secretary, Municipal Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai, shall revisit the policy of
leasing out the markets to private parties and find
out the possibilities of allotting shops at free of
cost to farmers and vendors; or at least find out the
possibilities of collecting the toll fee at a
reasonable or minimum cost by the officials of the
Local Bodies itself, in order to prevent the private
parties harassing the farmers and vendors from
collecting exorbitant charges under the blanket of
licensee or lease holder;
Index : Yes/No 27.04.2022
Internet : Yes/No
dsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
To
1.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
3.The Commissioner,
Salem Municipal Corporation,
Salem – 636 001.
4.The Assistant Commissioner,
Ammapet Zone,
Salem Corporation, Salem -636 003.
5.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration,
Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
6.The Secretary,
Agricultural Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -9.
7.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.7740 of 2020, etc.,
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.P.Nos.7740, 12740, 15928
and 17809 of 2020,
235, 1583, 4023,
4158 and 4233 of 202
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
