Madras High Court
V.Ranganathan vs The Chief Executive Officer on 9 March, 2023
2023:MHC:1071
Review Application No.36 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Review Application No.36 of 2022
in
W.P.No.24044 of 2021
V.Ranganathan
S/o. Thiru. Varadhan
No.7/8, Kothamadu,
Saithapet, Chennai – 600 015.
Represented by his Power of Attorney
K.Rathinasamy
S/o P.Koilpillai
Residing at 9/G-11, Rupy Exlane,
Kulakarai Street,
Tambaram West,
Chennai – 600 045. ... Applicant
Vs.
The Chief Executive Officer
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1 Gandhi Irvin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondent
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with
Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 10.11.2021
and made in W.P.No.24044 of 2021.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
For Applicant : Mr.M.Rajasekar
ORDER
The Review application is filed to review the order dated 10.11.2021
passed in W.P.No.24044 of 2021.
2. The petitioner filed a writ petition for a direction to direct the
respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated
20.10.2021 for allotment of Shop No. from B/P-24 to T/A-P-4 on conversion
in the light of W.P.No.4004 of 2000 order dated 08.03.2000.
3. This Court passed an order on 10.11.2021, as under:
“4. The High Court Cannot issue a
direction in the form of recommendation, so as to
direct the respondent to consider the case of Writ
Petition. Consideration of a claim could arise
only if the process commenced for such allotments
of shops in a market or the place under the
control of the CMDA. It is not as the any person
can file a Writ Petition seeking a direction to
consider the representation and by obtaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
such an order get preference for allotment or
otherwise. On most occasions, such a general
direction issued by the High Courts to consider
the representations are wrongly interpreted or
implemented by the authorities at their whims and
fancies, which causes prejudices to the other
eligible persons and more so deprived the right of
other eligible persons, who are also longing to
get such allotment in accordance with the rules
and regulations in force. Thus, even for issuing a
direction to consider the representation, the
rights of the persons, who are approaching the
High Court in a Writ Petition has to be
considered.
5. In the present case, the petitioner states
that he should be given preference. Preferences
or otherwise are to be granted only in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and Rules and not
otherwise. Thus, this Court cannot issue any such
direction to consider the representation. It is for
the petitioner to submit an application in the
event of any notification of such allotment or if he
is otherwise eligible, the authorities are bound to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
follow the regulations scrupulously while taking
decision in such matter.
6. With these observations, the Writ Petition
stands disposed of. No costs.”
4. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.18 of 2022 and the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the
writ appeal and granted liberty to maintain a review application against the
order passed in the writ petition. Pursuant to the liberty, the petitioner has
chosen to file the present Review Application.
5. The learned counsel for the review applicant mainly contended that
this Court passed an order, granting liberty to the applicant to submit an
application in the event of any notification for allotment of shop and if he is
otherwise eligible. The authorities are bound to follow the regulations
scrupulously while taking decision in such matters.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant referred the order passed in
W.P.No.4004 of 2000 dated 08.03.2000, wherein, the learned Single Judge
of this Court passed an order as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
“In view of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
writ petition is disposed of, directing the
respondents to consider the representation
submitted by the petitioner on 16.02.2000. in
future, if any shops fall vacant in any of the
categories, the respondent would consider the
request of the petitioner on preferential basis for
allotment if they otherwise satisfy the
requirements and pass orders according to law.
Consequently, WMP is closed.”
7. The learned counsel for the review applicant further referred the
order in another Division Bench in Review Application No.39 of 2009 dated
28.07.2009, wherein, the Division Bench has made an observation that “if
they frame such scheme in future, the applicant is at liberty to apply, which
is already stated in the earlier order. In these circumstances, we see no
reason to alter, modify or review the impugned judgment passed in
W.A.No.170 of 2009.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
8. In yet another writ petition, the learned Single Judge of this Court
passed an order directing the authorities to consider the representation
submitted by one Mr.T.S.K.Ramachandran.
9. Growing trend of filing writ petitions seeking the relief to consider
the representation, at all time, cannot be encouraged by the High Court,
while exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Numerous representations are sent without even
ascertaining or establishing the right to claim certain reliefs or benefits. In
such circumstances, the High Court is expected to ascertain, whether the
writ petitioner has established a right for seeking remedy. In the absence of
establishing any right, then no writ can be issued against the executives to
consider the representation.
10. Imagine, if High Court issues an order of direction to consider the
representation in a routine manner without even ascertaining the right of an
individual, the authorities may not be in position to consider the case of such
persons. Contrarily, this practice will pave way for corrupt activities amongst
the executives. By abusing such directions of the High Court, it is possible
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
that the executives may create a file and try to consider on extraneous
consideration, which would cause infringement of rights of all other citizen,
who all are eligible and aspiring to get relief.
11. Therefore, to maintain a writ petition, right is to be established.
Even to consider a representation, the petitioner has to prove that his rights
are violated with reference to the Statutes or Rules and such violations
provided a cause. Therefore, mere sending of representations alone cannot
be considered for the purpose of issuing a direction for disposal.
12. Statutory Appeals, if any filed also may be considered. However
routine representation or representations to achieve their goal in an indirect
manner at no circumstances be encouraged by the High Court by
entertaining writ proceedings.
13. The earlier orders referred by the learned counsel for the review
applicant reveals that this Court has not issued any positive directions, but
had passed an order stating that if there is any scheme, this case could be
considered. The parties are bound to establish that there is a scheme in force
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
and the authorities are abusing the scheme or violating the scheme, and then
alone the persons approaching the Court are entitled for the relief. Mere
presumption cannot be a ground to issue an order and such hypothetical
orders will also give unnecessary hope for the litigants to indulge in corrupt
activities with the connivance of the Executives and High Court at no
circumstances would aid for such illegalities.
14. The cause must be definite and certain so also the relief sought for
must be supported by violation or infringement of right. In the absence of
establishing such violations or infringement, no writ needs to be entertained
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of issuing a
direction to consider the representation in a mechanical manner.
15. Yet another practice of filing writ petitions have been recently
developed in the High Court, which is by sending representation, by putting
anti-dates and by filing a writ petition seeking the relief to consider the
representation. All such manipulative way of filing writ petitions should be
dealt with seriously and Courts cannot be utilised for achieving goals by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
litigants in an indirect manner. All such writ petitions deserve to be rejected
with exemplary costs. It should be construed as an abuse of judicial process.
16. In the present case, the applicant is unable to establish that there
is a scheme in force. In the absence of any such scheme, his representation
itself is not maintainable before the authorities. If at all there is a scheme,
then there must be an application in the prescribed format and all eligible
persons must be provided with an opportunity to submit their applications
and thereafter, the authorities are bound to take a decision on merits and in
accordance with law.
17. Thus, merely by sending a representation to the authorities for
allotment or conversion of shop cannot be construed as a right. Unless an
administrative decision is taken by the authorities for allotment or
conversion, the petitioner or any person have no locus to claim allotment or
conversion as a matter of right.
18. Thus, this Court has considered the grounds raised by the
applicant and granted him liberty to submit an appropriate application, if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
any scheme is introduced or notifications issued either for allotment or for
conversion or otherwise. The cause for submission of application would
arise only if there is a notification or scheme in force, but not otherwise.
When this Court has already granted liberty to the applicant to submit an
application in a prescribed format, if any notification or scheme has been
issued. Thus, there is no reason to reconsider the order passed by this Court.
19. With these clarifications, the Review Application stands
dismissed. No costs.
09.03.2023
Jeni
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
The Chief Executive Officer
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1 Gandhi Irvin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.36 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
Review Application No.36 of 2022
09.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
