Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs N.Ramesh on 27 April, 2023
W.A.No.4334 of 2019 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27..04..2023
CORAM
The Honourable MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
AND
The Honourable MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Appeal No.4334 of 2019
&
C.M.P.No.27814 of 2019
The Commissioner,
Hosur Municipality,
Municipal Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
..... Appellant
-Versus-
1.N.Ramesh
2.The Hosur Municipality,
Rep. By its Chairman,
Municipal Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai.
4.The Chairman and Managing Director,
TASMAC, Chennai
[Respondents 3 & 4 were suo motu impleaded as per order
dated 18.09.2015 made in W.P.No.29357 of 2015]
1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The District Collector,
Krishnagiri.
[5th Respondent was impleaded as per order dated 27.10.2015
made in W.P.No.29357 of 2015]
6.K.M.Sukumar
..... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside
the order dated 24.10.2019 made in W.P.No.29357 of 2015.
Appellant : Mr.N.Subbarayalu
Respondents : Mr.T.M.Hariharan for R1
Mr.R.Vigneswaran,
Government Advocate for RR3 & 5
Mr.L.Chandrakumar
[ No Appearance ] for R6
No Appearance for RR2 & 4
2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUGDEMENT
[JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J.,]
This Writ Appeal raises two interesting questions. The first question being
whether the executive arm of a municipality can refuse to implement validly
passed resolutions by a municipal council? The other question being whether
the executive arm can obstruct the formation of a street / lane, when the power to
form the same is with the municipal council?
2. The writ petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.29357 of 2015. He
had sought for the relief of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to
restore the Southern Entrance to Hosur Bus Stand from Vannar Street, which
entry point had been illegally closed by the respondents and for consequential
order.
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the public of Hosur were having
access to Hosur Bus Stand from Vannar Street through a passage in S.No.176.
The appellant had in and about 1986 constructed a row of shops on the southern
3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
side of the bus stand. The grievance is that Shop Nos.32 & 33 blocked the access
of the public from Vannar Street. The petitioner had further pleaded that the
access from the northern side is highly congested one as it is National Highway
and the public were happy to have access to the bus stand through the southern
side.
4. The issue was placed before the Municipal Council. The Municipal
Council passed three resolutions, first one was on 30.04.1997 in Resolution
No.198; the second one was on 31.03.1999 in Resolution No.174; and the third
one was on 11.02.2022 in Resolution No.183. As per the resolution of the year
1997, the Municipality had resolved to restore the passage. The Municipal
Council had directed the Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, to remove the Shop
Nos.32 & 33 and to restore the entrance to the bus stand from the southern end.
The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, who is the 3rd
respondent to the writ appeal, had directed the Hosur Municipality to conduct a
field inspection and to obtain a permission from the Director of Town and
Country Planning. On 05.04.1999, the Director of Town and Country Planning,
addressed the Hosur Municipality suggesting that western street which is about
4 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
50 feet from the bus stand may be extended. He also suggested that the views of
the Commissioner of Municipality Administration may be taken. Subsequently,
the Director of Town and Country Planning, after the perusal of the District
Municipalities Act, 1920, came to a conclusion that creation of a new street is
within the jurisdiction of the Municipality and therefore, he had left the decision
to them.
5. On 12.10.1998, the passage in S.No.176 which is the subject matter of
the writ petition, bearing old S.No.6/1A1A1A4, was gifted to Hosur Municipality
for the purpose of creating access. Taking note of these developments, by a
resolution dated 11.02.2002, the Municipal Council directed restoration of the
southern entrance for access. It is on record that when the new bus stand was
created, the existing municipal passage was closed. Since the Commissioner of
Municipality did not implement the several resolutions of the Municipal Council,
W.P.No.29357 of 2015 came to be filed. In that writ petition, this court was
pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to suggest, whether it would be
beneficial to restore the Municipal Passage on the south of the bus stand.
5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Nearly after a year, on 12.04.2018, the Advocate Commissioner, who
was appointed by this court, submitted a report categorically stating that if Shop
Nos.32 & 33 are removed and a passage is created, it would be beneficial to the
public of Hosur. After detailed arguments were heard, a learned single Judge of
this court passed an order on 24.10.2019. The finding of the learned single Judge
are extracted as under:-
“9. Considering the report dated 12.04.2018 filed by the
learned Advocate Commissioner stating that there is no passage in
existence from Vannar Street to Bus Stand and also considering
Resolution No.183, dated 11.02.2002, passed by the Hosur
Municipal Council deciding to form a passage on the Southern
side of the Bus Stand and also considering the Gift Deed dated
12.10.1998 donating 880 sq.ft. in favour of the second respondent
for the said purpose, this Court posed a question to
Mr.N.Subbarayalu, learned counsel for the Hosur Municipality, as
to what prevented them to provide access to the Bus Stand from
Southern Side, although initially he has heavily opposed the
prayer made by the petitioner, by referring to Section 35 of the
Act, he has submitted that Section 35 of the Act gives enormous
power to the District Collector to enforce execution of Resolution,
therefore, a direction may be given to the District Collector to
send a report on the Resolution with explanation, if any, to the
State Government, forwarding a copy of the same to the learned
counsel for the petitioner. If the State Government comes forward
6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the said report, the first respondent will act accordingly
thereon.
10. But, the report of the Advocate Commissioner clearly
shows that there is no passage existing from Vannar street to reach
the Bus Stand by public, hence, it is to be noted that the first
respondent, after deciding to construct new Bus Stand with better
facilities to accommodate the increasing traffic, had also
demolished the old Bus Stand and constructed the new Bus Stand
during the years 2007-2008. During the construction of work,
although the second respondent, as pleaded in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition, had closed the Southern Entrance with
an assurance that they would restore back the entrance of Southern
Side, ironically, it could be seen that the second respondent has
not come forward to restore the same, more particularly, even
after Resolution No.183, dated 11.02.2002, passed by the Hosur
Municipal Council, unanimously deciding to provide access to the
Bus Stand from the Southern Side. Moreover, one
T.M.Rangasami and two others, namely, T.N.Sathish and
T.N.Suresh Babu, have also executed a Gift Deed dated
12.10.1998 through the Power of Attorney/sixth respondent
herein, in favour of the second respondent, donating 880 sq.ft. of
land for the formation of passage to Bus Stand from Southern
Side. Therefore, objections raised by the learned counsel
appearing for the Hosur Municipality do not carry any merit in
view of the Resolution dated 11.02.2002 passed by the Hosur
Municipal Council coupled with the above said Gift Deed
executed in favour of the second respondent for the formation of
passage to Bus Stand from Southern Side.
7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court, taking
note of the fact that the second respondent had already passed
Resolution No.183, dated 11.02.2002, for the formation of
passage on the Southern Side of the Bus Stand from Vannar
Street, and also taking note of the report dated 12.04.2018 filed by
the learned Advocate Commissioner stating that there is no
passage existing to reach the Bus Stand from Southern side of
Vannar Street, hereby directs the second respondent to act on the
basis of the said Resolution dated 11.02.2002 passed by the Hosur
Municipal Council for the formation of passage on the Southern
side of the Bus Stand from Vannar Street, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
7. The learned single Judge took note of the resolutions passed by the
Municipal Council and had come to a conclusion that the passage be formed by
the appellant on the southern side of the bus stand from Vannar Street within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Aggrieved by
such directions, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.
8. We heard Mr.N.Subbarayalu, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.T.M.Hariharan, learned counsel, who appeared for the contesting 1st
respondent.
8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the public have
no right to have access to the bus stand from the south side on the Vannar Street.
He would argue that it is true under Section 22 of the District Municipalities Act,
it is the duty of the Executive Authority, i.e., the appellant herein to implement
the resolutions of the Municipal Council. He would argue that, in this case, the
Executive Authority is not willing to implement the same and, therefore, the
solution to the imbroglio is only to appeal to the good sense of the District
Collector under Section 35 of the District Municipalities Act. He would rely
upon a few judgments of this court to state that when a person does not have a
right, a writ petition is not maintainable. He would state that the Commissioner,
Hosur Municipality, is not willing to implement the resolutions, though it has
been reiterated thrice by the Municipal Council because it would amount to a loss
of Rs.5000/- per year to the Municipality.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant would first refer to the judgment
in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev reported in AIR 1964 SC 685 to
submit that a person who has no right, is not entitled to invoke under Article 226
9 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the Constitution. He would then refer to the judgment of this court in Retired
Official Association v. Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu
reported in (2005) 3 M.L.J. 556. Basing his argument on this judgment, he
would state that it is always open to the Government to change or abandon any
plan and no writ petition can be filed for enforcing the resolution. He would then
cite a judgment of this court in Shantha Srinivasan v. The Secretary to
Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.
George, Chenani reported in 2015 (2) CWC 366 to state that a resolution is not
an order and, therefore, a writ petition cannot be filed challenging the same. To
the same effect, he would rely upon a judgment of this Court in W.P.(MD)
No.323 of 2015 & batch cases dated 23.08.2017 - The Trustee of Diocese of
Thuckalay, rep. By its Correspondent v. Dr.C.Radhakrishnan Nair and
others.
11. Inviting the attention of this court to a judgment of the Supreme Court
in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers reported in (2003)
3 SCC 57, more particularly, para 21, Mr.N.Subbarayalu, would state that the
court will have to reject an attempt to construct a statute that would defeat the
10 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plain intention of the legislation and that one section of the statute should not be
used to defeat another provision. He would also refer to M.Mokkaiyan,
President Vaigai Dam Fishermen Cooperative Society v. The Assistant
Director, Fisheries Department, Madurai reported in (1999) 2 MLJ 80 to state
that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must
be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are
necessarily forbidden. He would state that Section 35 of the District
Municipalities Act is a bar for filing a writ petition as it is only the District
Collector, who can take action for the failure of the Commissioner of a
Municipality to implement a resolution of the Municipal Council and this court
ought not to have issued a writ of mandamus.
12. Rebutting this argument, Mr.T.M.Hariharan would state as per the
original records, in particular, the Town Survey Land Register, the land in
S.No.176 has been shown to be poramboke land, i.e., belonging to the
Government. He would further submit that the Municipality has power to open a
street and would refer to Section 163(1) (a) of the District Municipalities Act,
1920. He would then argue that the power to order closure of a street is available
11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only with the State Government under Section 163(1)(c) of the District
Municipalities Act and that since the Government has not canceled the
resolutions passed by the Municipal Council, the Commissioner of Municipality
is bound to implement it under Section 22 of the District Municipalities Act,
1920. He would state that the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed
by this court has given a clear and categorical finding that opening of the passage
would be beneficial to the public at large in Hosur and for reasons best known to
the appellant, he is refusing to implement the same.
13. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced on either side.
14. It is on record that three resolutions were passed by the Municipal
Council of Hosur Municipality. By resolution No.198 dated 30.04.1997, a
member of the municipal council had laid out a proposal that a passage be
formed to connect the existing passage to the bus stand and had suggested that
Shop Nos.32 & 33 should be demolished. The Municipal Council accepted this
resolution. While passing the said resolution, the Municipal Council took note of
the fact that the owner of the private land was willing to execute a gift deed in
12 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
favour of the Municipality. Accordingly, a registered gift deed was also executed
and registered in favour of the Municipality on 12.10.1998. This shows that the
written consent given by the owner fructified into a registered gift deed and the
passage which was sought for by the Municipal Council was also transferred in
its favour. On this issue, the advice from the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration was sought for. The Commissioner had also informed that a road
situated beyond 50 feet on the west could be extended and a link can be made to
the new bus stand.
15. This view about linking of the new bus stand, by formation of a new
road, was also placed before the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council took
note of the fact that the passage had been gifted by the owner to the Municipality
and that if the suggestion of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration were
to be accepted, it would require acquisition of land and as the financial position
of the Municipality was not in good condition, they resolved to form the road by
removing the Shop Nos.32 & 33.
13 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. When this view was sent to the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration, he had responded positively and had stated that the formation of
the road was within the powers of the Municipal Council and therefore, left it to
their wisdom. The same was the response from the Additional Secretary to the
Government of Tamil Nadu.
17. The public of Hosur had, yet again, petitioned their elected
representatives at the Municipal Council to form the road. The Municipal
Council, as is required, had sought for the opinion of the Commissioner of
Municipality. The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, had responded that by
demolition of Shop Nos.32 & 33, the Municipality would lose about Rs.5000/-
per year and that there is a possibility of increase in value of the property
abutting the passage and, therefore, had advised against the proposal for
demolition of the shops. Taking into consideration of these things, the Municipal
Council passed the final resolution on 11.02.2002. The said resolution reads as
follows:-
14 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“jPh;khdk; vz; 183
g[jpa ngUe;J epiyaj;jpy; Vw;fdnt cs;ss ghijfs;
giHa bg';fS:h; rhiyia kl;Lnk ,izg;gjhy;. $dg;gh; ngl;il.
ehkhy; ngl;il. e";Rz;nl!;tuh; nfhtpy; bjU kw;Wk; ngh!; g$hh;
Mfpa ,l';fSf;F bry;y ePz;l J}uk; MfpwJ vd;gjhYk; fle;j 5
Mz;L fhykhf me;jg; gFjp kf;fspd; nfhhpf;ifahft[k; cs;sJ
vd;gjhYk; Vw;fdnt cs;s ghijfs; mjpf Tl;l behpryhft[k;.
kf;fs; rK:f tpnuhj bray;fspdhy; kpft[k; mtjpg;gLtjhYk;. fhty;
Jiwapd; mwpt[Wj;jypd; nghpYk; kd;wk; ,e;j Koit midj;J
cWg;gpdh;fSk; Vfkdjhf Vw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;sjhYk; ,e;j ,izg;g[
rhiyia efuhl;rp eph;thf kz;ly ,af;Feh; mth;fspd; mDkjp
bgw;W mikf;f jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;lJ/
(xk;) gp/vk;/e";Rz;lrhkp
efh;kd;w jiyth;
XR{h; efuhl;rp.”
18. It is here the power of the Municipality to form a road becomes
relevant. The District Municipalities Act, 1920 has given the power for formation
of a road or a street to the Municipal Council itself. This is found under Section
163 which reads as follows:-
“163. Powers of municipal authorities.- (1) The
council may -
(a) lay out and make new public streets;
(b) construct bridges and sub-ways;
(c) turn, divert or with the special sanction of the
15 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
State Government permanently close any public street or
part thereof;
(d) widen, open, extend or otherwise improve any
public street;
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....”
[Emphasis supplied]
19. The Act itself states that compensation should be paid to the owners
who would be affected by the formation of the road. Fortunately, in the case on
hand, the owner of the land in S.No.179 has executed a gift deed in favour of the
Municipality on 12.10.1998. Therefore, the issue of payment of compensation
does not arise here. The Municipal Council, in its wisdom, had decided that it
would create a street for the benefit of the public and was willing to absorb the
loss of Rs.5000/- per year. The attitude of the Commissioner, who under Section
22 of the District Municipalities Act, is bound to implement the resolution of the
Municipal Council is bewildering. Section 22 is clear and categorical and it
reads as follows:-
“22. Executive authority to carry out council's
resolutions. - The executive authority shall be bound
to give effect to every resolution of the council unless
such resolution is modified, suspended or canceled by a
16 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
controlling authority.”
The words “shall be bound to give effect to every resolution” shows that the
Executive Authority cannot take a different view from that of the Municipal
Council. This is very clear to read, as the decision, is that of the elected
representatives who are alive to the larger public interest than the Executive
authority who is a member of a bureaucracy. The protection against any arbitrary
decision is found under Section 36 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920. The
Government is the controlling authority and if any resolution is passed, which in
the opinion of the Government is contrary to law, or in excess of the powers of
the Council or would result in danger to the human health and safety or to lead to
riot or affray, the Government can step in and cancel / suspend or modify the
resolution.
20. As per Section 22, if a resolution of the council is not interfered with
by the controlling authority – the State Government, the Executive authority does
not have any discretion, other than to implement the same. We find it surprising
that three resolutions have been passed by the Municipal Council in 1997, 1999
17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and 2002 and the Commissioner of Hosur Municipality refuses to implement the
same. It is here, we have to take note of the fact that under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this court has the power to direct the executive authority to
comply with the statutory provisions. The statute is clear and unambiguous. It
states that the Executive Authority shall give effect to the resolution and when a
resolution has been passed and reiterated twice, the Executive Authority cannot
refuse to implement the same. If the resolution is not implemented as
contemplated under Section 22, it would lead to arbitrariness and would put the
hierarchy of Municipal Administration contemplated under The Tamil Nadu
District Municipalities Act, 1920 into disarray.
21. We are not convinced with the argument that they did not have right to
approach the court by way of mandamus. In the Hohfeld's Cube of
Jurisprudential rights and duties, every right has a corresponding duty and vice
versa. As per Section 22 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, a duty is
imposed on the appellant to implement the resolution of the municipal council. In
case, the said duty is not discharged, a corresponding right is created on the
members of the municipality. Section 35, by very nature, is only an
18 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
administrative corrective mechanism and does not interfere with the rights of the
parties.
22. The arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant that it is only
the District Collector who has power to enforce the execution of the resolution
does not appeal to us. Section 35 of the District Municipalities Act speaks about
the power vested in the Collector to forward a reply to the Government, after
receiving a reply from the Executive authority, for failure to implement the
resolution. This is more in the nature of an administrative supervision. This
section certainly does not empower the Commissioner of a Municipality to
violate the law under Section 22 of the District Municipalities Act, 1920. Article
14 of the Constitution of India not only grants equality before law, but, further
demands that there shall be equal protection of law. Section 22 of the District
Municipalities Act, as we have already found, is clear and is mandatory. Failure
to implement a resolution in terms of Section 22, violates the provision of law
and therefore, it is arbitrary. An act which is arbitrary has to be struck down
proprio vigore by Article 14.
19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23. When in exercise of its statutory powers, the Municipal Council has
decided to form a road under Section 163(1)(a), it is not open to the
Commissioner of the Municipality to keep the road closed. It is clear from the
provision in Section 163(1)(c) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920 that the
power to close such road is not given to the Commissioner of a Municipality but,
it is given to the Municipal Council after obtaining special sanction from the
State Government under Section 163(1)(c) of the District Municipalities Act. If a
road has to be kept closed, then the power is given only to the Municipal Council
- Elected Representatives and this statutory power cannot be usurped by the
executive arm namely, the appellant herein.
24. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in
M.Mokkaiyan, President Vaigai Dam Fishermen Cooperative Society v. The
Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Madurai (1999) 2 MLJ 80, in fact
goes against the appellant and it does not favour him. For the simple reason, if
the road which has been laid out and gifted to the municipality has to be kept
closed, that power can be exercised only by the municipal council and not by the
Commissioner of a Municipality.
20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the gifted
passage has not been accepted by the municipality is of no avail. The factum of
the gift as well as the mutation of the revenue records reflecting such gift is not
in dispute before us. Therefore, once the land is gifted for the purpose of
formation of a road and the same has been accepted by the Government, it is too
much on the part of a small cog in the governance viz., the Commissioner of the
Municipality to argue that he has not accepted the same. The Town Survey Land
Register maintained by the Government of Tamil Nadu shows the transfer of land
in S.NO.176, old S.No.6/1A1A1A4 from that of a private holding to a
Government holding – poramboke. This shows that the road had been gifted and
accepted by the Government and the revenue records also were accordingly
mutated.
26. These findings should settle the issue for the writ petitioners. However,
we want to point out that the writ court took the efforts of appointing the
Advocate Commissioner and formulated 9 questions. One of the questions was,
whether public would have to walk a long distance through the municipal
21 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pathway to reach the bus stand and if the road is formed, as visualized by the
council whether it would be beneficial to the public at large to have access
through Vannar street. The findings to both these two questions are that, in order
to reach the bus stand a person would have to walk nearly about 500 feet whereas
if the lane is created as contemplated by the municipal council, the distance
would be much shorter and that it would be beneficial to the public. We are able
to perceive that it is this public interest that swayed the municipal council to form
the road. We are unable to comprehend how an act taken in public interest can be
controverted by the executive arm of the municipality.
27. We are not able to agree to the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that Section 35 of the District Municipalities Act is a bar to an order
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Section 35 contemplates an order
of administrative superior to see that the resolutions of the council are enforced.
This is not a bar or even an alternative remedy for us to exercise our discretion to
refuse issuance of a writ. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant do not apply to this case.
22 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28. Insofar as the judgment in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev
reported in AIR 1964 SC 685 is concerned, it was the case where the petitioners
before the High Court had no interest over the property and had sought for a writ
of mandamus not to be dispossessed. The Supreme Court had recorded in para 4
that the lands were held by the writ petitioners therein as service tenure and once
the grant was resumed, the petitioners were not entitled to continue in possession.
29. We are not able to understand as to how that fact applies to the present
case where the municipal council, in the interest of public, has created a road and
it was sought to be obstructed by executive arm.
30. The second judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant
reported in Retired Official Association v. Sports Development Authority of
Tamil Nadu, [(2005) 3 M.L.J. 556] is also not applicable to the present case.
That was a case where the resolution had been passed to construct a Sports
Stadium. Subsequently, the Government decided to cancel that resolution and
directed the Sports Development Authority to construct a students hostel. The
23 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petitioner sought for a direction that the students hostel must not be
constructed and the original resolution passed by the State Government to
construct a stadium should be enforced. The court held that it is the discretion of
the Government how to put its land to use and if the Government finds better
public purpose would be served by constructing a students hostel, the court
should not interfere with the same.
31. In this case, the resolution has been passed by the statutory authority
viz., the municipal council in exercise of its power under Section 163(1)(a) of the
District Municipalities Act, 1920 to form a road. The only authority which can
suspend or cancel a resolution is the State Government under Section 36 of the
District Municipalities Act, 1920. When the said resolution has not been
modified, suspended or canceled under Section 22, the Executive Authority must
implement the resolution. We enquired with the learned counsel for the appellant
if the resolution has been canceled and he answered in the negative. When such
is the position, the judgment referred to above is totally inapplicable.
32. The next two orders referred to by the writ petitioners viz., Shantha
24 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Srinivasan [2005 (2) CWC 366] and W.P.(MD) No.323 of 2015 & batch cases
dated 23.08.2017 - The Trustee of Diocese of Thuckalay, rep. By its
Correspondent v. Dr.C.Radhakrishnan Nair and others are the cases where
the resolutions that had been passed had been challenged by way of writ petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was in that light, the court held
that passage of a mere declaration reclassifying the land does not attain finality
till it is implemented by the competent authority. In the case on hand, the
competent authority to form new road is Municipal Council. This is under
Section 163(1)(a) of the District Municipalities Act. Therefore, the said
judgments are not applicable to the present case.
33. The judgment of the learned single judge extracted above shows that he
has taken into consideration all the resolutions passed by the municipal council,
the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the larger public interest
involved. The above narration would show that the benefit to the general public
is much more and the statutory authority, the municipal council itself has decided
to absorb the loss of Rs.5000/- per year as against the creation of an access to the
general public. When the statutory authority as well as the learned single judge
25 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have acted in the interest of general public, we are not in a position to appreciate
the action of the appellant in taking all kinds of steps to obstruct the same.
34. In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the
writ appeal and the same is dismissed. Had it been an appeal at the instance of a
private party, we would have imposed costs on the appellant for obstructing a
public welfare measure. Taking into consideration the status of the appellant, we
are not inclined to impose any costs on him.
In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed and the order dated
24.10.2019 made in W.P.No.29357 of 2015 is confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
(V.M.V.,J.) (V.L.N.,J.)
27..04..2023
Index : yes / no
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
26 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hosur Municipality,
Municipal Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
2.The Chairman, Hosur Municipality,
Municipal Office,
Hosur, Krishnagiri District.
3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chennai.
4.The Chairman and Managing Director,
TASMAC, Chennai
5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.
27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.M.VELUMANI.J.,
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J.,
kmk
Writ Appeal No.4334 of 2019
27..04..2023
28 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
