Madras High Court
Nagaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 June, 2023
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.9745, 9746, 9749, 9752, 9756,
9757, 9747, 9748, 9751 and 9754 of 2023
Nagaraj ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11161 of 2023
Sethuraman ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11162 of 2023
Thavasi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11163 of 2023
C.Chellapandi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11164 of 2023
Poocharam ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11165 of 2023
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Annex Building,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
3.The Commissioner
Usilampatti Municipality,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District. ... Respondents in all writ petitions
COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.
808/2022/E1 dated 19.04.2023 on the file of the third respondent and
quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to re-
induct the petitioner as tenants and provide him shop in the proposed
New Bus Stand at Usilampatti without conducting fresh auction and also
to provide alternate temporary shops until the completion of project
namely, New Bus Stand at Usilampatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
In all Writ Petitions
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Rajasekar
for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates
For Respondents : Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan - for R1 & R2
Special Government Pleader
Mr.Veerakathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.Austin - for R3
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned Counsel on behalf of the
petitioners herein, Mr.N.Muthu Vijayan, learned Special Government
Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Austin, learned counsel for
the third respondent.
2. The Writ Petitions have been filed in the nature of
Certiorarified Mandamus seeking interference with an order of the third
respondent/ Commissioner, Usilampatti Municipality, Usilampatti, dated
19.04.2023 in Na.Ka.No.808/2022/E1 and to direct the respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
re-induct the petitioners as a tenants and provide shops in the proposed
new bus stand at Usilampatti without conducting fresh auction and also
to provide alternate temporary shops until completion of the project
namely, New Bus Stand at Usilampatti.
3. In all the Writ Petitions the same relief has been sought.
All the Writ Petitioners were lessees of shops at Usilampatti Bus Stand.
They had all been issued with notices calling upon them to vacate since
the respondents had put up a plan for construction of a new bus stand.
Even on earlier occasion, sporadically, several individuals who had taken
shops on lease had filed Writ Petitions and on hearing the learned
counsels and the learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondents and also the Special Government Pleader, this Court had
refused to accede to the request sought by the petitioners therein.
4. The reliefs sought in these Writ Petitions, in my opinion
are self contradictory. The reliefs sought are for a Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking interference of an order by which the petitioners
were directed to vacate and handover possession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
5. In the same breathe, it is also stated that they must be
re-inducted after the bus stand is constructed. This would naturally mean
they will have to vacate because if they do not vacate, the bus stand
could not be constructed. The third aspect is that they should be given
alternate shops till the new construction is put up. Again this relief
would run contradictory to the first relief sought that they should not be
evicted. The word used in the relief is "re-induct" which naturally means
that they are today not in possession and seek to come back once again
as to run the shops.
6. Even otherwise, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Writ
Petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Sections 321 and 322 of
the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and stated that when
any order is passed by the Executive Council, there is an appeal
provision available and the time limit for filing such an appeal would be
30 days and that under the notice which is impugned, just 7 days had
been given to vacate the shops. However, the petitioners had been
inducted by grant of lease and as an illustration in the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.10430 of 2023, by proceedings dated
04.10.2017 in Na.Ka.No.999/2013/m1 the lease period was from
01.04.2017 till 31.03.2026. The petitioner was granted lease of shop
No.92. The lease deed is relied on by the petitioner that he should
continue to be in possession till 31.03.2026.
7. However, the very terms of the lease, will have to applied
and abided by the petitioners herein. One of the clauses of the lease is as
follows :
"kd;wk; tpUk;gpdhy; vt;tpj
fhuzKk; ,d;wp Kd;dwptpf;if bra;J chpa
fhyj;jpd; ,ilapy; chpkj;ij epWj;jp tpl
mjpfhuk; cz;L/"
8. Another clause of the lease is as follows :-
"nkw;go filfSf;F efuhl;rpf;F
njitg;gLk;nghJ jh';fs; vt;tpj
Ml;nrgizapd;wp mg;nghJs;s epiyapnyna
,lj;ij jpUk;g xg;gilf;f ntz;Lk;/"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
9. The terms are very clear that the respondents have
retained a right to resume the shops and to claim back possession incase
of any exigency. The exigency which is now pointed out is that the
respondents have to construct a new bus stand.
10. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that in an earlier
Writ Petition, it had been stated by the petitioner therein that the existing
bus stand is in land of about 2 acres and that the new bus stand would be
constructed in land of 1-1/2 acres. It is therefore, stated that the shops
need not be vacated.
11. This is a decision which has to be taken by the
respondents and certainly this Court cannot examine as to the manner in
which the bus stand is going to be built or the plan of the bus stand and
whether the shops will have to be vacated or not vacated. That
argument, will necessarily have to fail.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
12. There is yet another argument which has been presented
by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, wherein he pointed out the
provision of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, more
particularly, to Rule No.45 wherein, it had been stated that if any public
stand and in this case, the learned Senior Counsel indicted the bus stand
which is to be constructed as a public stand, necessary approval will
have to be obtained from the Director and Town and Country Planning
and the procedure enunciated will have to be followed. The respondents
would certainly appreciate the stand of the petitioners because now they
have been made aware of this particular fact and I am confident that they
would proceed in manner know to law and the Court also is of the
opinion that the respondents have stood benefited by this stand taken by
the learned Senior Counsel to their advantage and the respondents now
being enlightened with this provision may act accordingly, and proceed
to get necessary permission.
13. One further stand taken by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners is by drawing attention to a Division Bench Judgment of this
Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.21204 of 2019 batch, in Tanjore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
Managara /Thalaimai kadaikani Varthaga Sangam, Rep. by its President
S.Dharmaraj Vs. The Tanjore Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner,
Tanjore District and others, wherein, the Division Bench had stated that
as follows in paragraph 29 (ii) :-
(ii) The owners of the permanent shops, who
were the erstwhile licensees of the Corporation shall
be permitted to continue their trading activities in the
proposed temporary licensed shops subject to
payment of license fee, which is determined by the
first respondent Corporation, which shall be as per
P.W.D. rates. This arrangement is purely temporary
till the expiry of the time fixed by the Corporation and
the traders have no right to continue beyond the said
period."
14. The Division Bench, had stated that the owners of the
permanent shops who are erstwhile licensees shall be permitted to
continue the trading activities in the proposed temporary licensed shops
subject to payment of license fee. This is a direction given in that
particular Writ Petition with respect to the facts in that particular Writ
Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
15. It is also seen that the Writ Petitions had been filed
before the Division Bench. Here, the Writ Petitioners have sought three
different prayers which are couched in one prayer and each one of them
are contradictory to the other. The first claim is that they should not be
evicted. Then they claimed that if the new bus stand is constructed, they
must be given shops in the new bus stand, which naturally means that
they must concede that they should be evicted. They also state as a third
alternate that they must be given an alternate place by the respondents
herein. The petitioners cannot then question the notice issued to vacate.
They must show bonafide by voluntarily vacating and not by raising
issues questioning the notices issued. They have no right to continue in
the place as seen from the licence granted to the petitioners herein. The
respondents have every right to resume possession of the shops in case
of exigencies. Building a bus stand is for the benefit of the entire public
in that particular area. Building a Bus stand is for the benefit of not only
to the general public there but also for all the travellers who come. I am
not impressed with the arguments advanced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.06.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Annex Building,
Chepauk,
Chennai.
3.The Commissioner
Usilampatti Municipality,
Usilampatti,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
RM
W.P(MD)Nos.11161 to 11165 of 2023
01.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
