Madras High Court
M.A.Ahamed vs Commissioner Of Municipal ... on 8 August, 2023
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
M.A.Ahamed .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration
No.78, Urban Administrative Building
Santhome High Road
Chennai 28.
2. The Commissioner
Villupuram Municipality
Villupuram.
3. S.Mohammed Rafi
4. M.Sarangabani .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 10.03.2021 made in W.P.No.17602 of 2020.
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Purushothaman
For Mr.A.Asif Basha
For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha
Special Government Pleader
for Respondent-1
Mr.D.Ravichander
for Respondent-2
Mr.N.Suresh
for Respondent-3
Not ready in notice -
for Respondent-4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.G.Purushothaman, learned counsel for
Mr.A.Asif Basha, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs.R.Anitha,
learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent,
Mr.D.Ravichander, learned counsel for the second respondent and
Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the third respondent.
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition challenging the
allotment of shops to the respondents 3 and 4. The learned Single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present
appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
had bid for Shop No.4 and Shop No.7. The appellant was the highest
bidder. But, the shops were allotted to the respondents 3 and 4 only
on the ground that they were lessees and though they have quoted
less rates, they were allowed to increase the bid amount to match
the rates quoted by the appellant.
4. According to learned counsel for the appellant, such
exercise is an empty formality. If the respondents 3 and 4 would
have bid the amount equal to the appellant, then the preference
could have been given to them. There was no question of giving
opportunity to the respondents 3 and 4 to increase their bid to the
bid of the appellant. If such a recourse is adopted, the very purpose
of auction stands frustrated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as
far as Shop No.4 is concerned, the same is occupied by the third
respondent. As regards Shop No.7, the person to whom it was
allotted is dead and he has no legal heirs. Thus, Shop No.7 is not
occupied. In view of that and as the appellant is the highest bidder,
at least Shop No.7 can be allotted to the appellant.
6. It is not disputed that the respondents 3 and 4 were lessees
and they had raised bid amount to the bid amount of the appellant.
Some leverage is to be given to the principal/employer to decide as
to the methodology of auction. It is not a case of loss of public
exchequer. The persons to whom preference is given are the original
lessees and the clause in the tender itself states that preference
would be given to the lessees and the said clause was introduced
pursuant to the orders of this Court. As the respondents 3 and 4 had
raised the bid amount to the bid of the appellant, the decision of the
Municipality to give it to the lessees was not erroneous. The learned
Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
order.
7. As far as Shop No.7 is concerned, as it is submitted that the
lessee is dead and he does not have legal heir, the appellant may
make an application to the Municipality, which application shall be
considered by the Municipality on its own merits.
The writ appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to
costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.13197 of 2021 is closed.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
08.08.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kpl
To
1. Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Commissionerate of Municipal Administration
No.78, Urban Administrative Building
Santhome High Road
Chennai 28.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
2. The Commissioner
Villupuram Municipality
Villupuram.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(kpl)
W.A.No.2087 of 2021
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
