Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs M.Kannan on 20 February, 2025
Author: S. M. Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam
W.A.No.143 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
Writ Appeal No.143 of 2025
and
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.965 of 2025
The Commissioner,
Mettur Municipality,
Mettur Dam-1,
Salem District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. M.Kannan
2. M.D.Dineshkumar
3. R.Venugopal
4. R.Kumar
5. J.Sivasuriyan
6. K.Sekar
7. S.Sakunthala
8. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 099.
... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.A.No.143 of 2025
against the order dated 03.12.2024 in W.P.No.35757 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr. Lordu Paul Maurya
For R1 to R5 & R7 : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian
For R6 : Died
For R8 : Mrs.E.Ranganayaki,
Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
Under assail is the order dated 03.12.2024 passed in W.P.No.35757 of
2024.
2. The respondents herein have instituted writ proceedings seeking
direction to the second respondent to issue orders with regard to the re-
allotment of shops as per the Government Order dated 06.08.2024 passed in
G.O. (2pa). No.66, Municipal Administration and Water Supply
Department.
3. The respondents were running shops at Mettur bus stand. Lease
entered into between the Municipality and the respondents were renewed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
periodically, by way of conducting public auction. The Municipality took a
policy decision to demolish the bus stand buildings and to reconstruct the
same. Accordingly, it was informed to the lessees, who were in occupation
of shops and other occupants in the bus stand. Subsequently, all the lessees
vacated their respective premises and the Municipality took possession of
the property and reconstructed the buildings.
4. The erstwhile lessees claimed that they must be allotted shops in
the new building constructed, based on the Government Order issued in
G.O. (2pa). No.66 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
dated 06.08.2024.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the
lessees handed over possession to the respondent Municipality, even before
expiry of the lease period, therefore, they are entitled to get allotment in the
new building, till such time, their lease expires. It is contended that the lease
period is going to expire in March 2025. Thus, all the respondents are
entitled to get allotment in the new building and they must be allowed to
continue to run their business, till the expiry of the lease period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the
conditions imposed in the lease, the lessees have to vacate the premises,
whenever the Municipality ask them to vacate.
7. In the present case, a policy decision was taken by the Municipality
to demolish the old buildings and to reconstruct the same. It is not in dispute
that the lessees vacated the premises, even before expiry of the lease period.
They have handed over possession to the municipal authorities, who in turn,
took possession and constructed new buildings.
8. Question arises whether the lessees are entitled to get allotment in
the new buildings.
9. Lease deed would reveal that the period of lease is for three years
commenced from 01.04.2022 and will expire on 31.03.2025. However, due
to the policy decision, the lessees vacated the premises and handed over
possession.
10. Earlier, the first respondent herein Mr.M.Kannan, filed
W.P.No.18918 of 2023. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order on 30.06.2023 stating that the petitioner was granted three months’
time to vacate and hand over the shop to the Commissioner, Municipality. If
the petitioner does not hand over possession of the shop, within the period
of three months, it was left open to the Commissioner, Municipality to
initiate steps to take possession of the shop.
11. In so far as, the re-allotment is concerned, the respondents will
strictly go by the terms of the Government Order, that governs the allotment
of shops through licence or lease. Except protection for three months
granted, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any further relief to the
writ petitioner therein Mr.M.Kannan. The said writ order became final. The
lessees handed over possession. New buildings constructed. Now the
present writ petition is filed relying on the Government Order passed in
G.O. (2pa). No.66 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
dated 06.08.2024.
12. Admittedly, no letter of undertaking or promise was given by the
Municipality to allot shops to the erstwhile lessees in the new building
constructed. In the absence of any such undertaking or promise, the lessees
who vacated the premises cannot claim any privilege for securing any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
allotment in the newly constructed buildings. As far as G.O.(2pa).No.66,
dated 06.08.2024 is concerned, it is not applicable to the case of the
petitioners since they have vacated the premises in the year 2023 and the
G.O. came in force thereafter. More so, such general guidelines issued by
the Government for allotment of shops cannot violate the established
principles of law for allotment of public shops to the persons. Public
premises are to be allotted by scrupulously following the established legal
principles. Equal opportunity is to be afforded to all the eligible aspiring
candidates, who all are waiting to secure allotment of shops in the newly
constructed bus stand.
13. Merely because, a person was in occupation of old building and
the lease period had not expired, the said position would not confer any
right to claim allotment in the newly constructed building. All such lessees
have to participate in the public auction to be conducted.
14. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has clarified that
the petitioners can participate in the auction, however, further directions are
granted even if the respondents are unsuccessful, they must be given an
opportunity to accept to pay the amount which was the highest bid and if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
they are prepared to pay the amount then, they should get priority in re-
allotment.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, question of re-allotment
would not arise in the present case. Once the lessee vacated the premises
and surrendered the shop to the Municipality, the lease came to be
determined under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore,
the claim of the respondents that the lease period still exists would be of no
assistance to them to secure re-allotment in the newly constructed building.
Once the lease determined thereafter, the lessees have no right to claim re-
allotment but they have to participate in the public auction to be conducted.
16. In the present case, the respondents’ erstwhile lessees have no
right to claim re-allotment but they are at liberty to participate in the public
auction to be conducted. Thus, the direction granted by the writ Court
providing priority for re-allotment is running counter to the principles of
law. Thus the writ order is partly confirmed by setting aside the direction,
granting priority to the respondents 1 to 7, which is running counter to the
principles of law. However, the respondents 1 to 7 are at liberty to
participate in the open auction to be conducted by the Municipality by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
following the due procedures and in accordance with law. The learned
counsel for the respondents would submit that the lease amount in excess is
lying with the Municipality. If so, the respondents are at liberty to approach
the Municipality seeking refund of the said amount.
17. The writ appeal stands allowed on the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition
stands closed.
(S.M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J.)
20.02.2025
ssi
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 099.
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM., J.
AND
K. RAJASEKAR., J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ssi
W.A.No.143 of 2025 and
20.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
