Madras High Court
P.Mangaibahan vs The Member Secretary on 10 January, 2025
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P.No. 6416 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 10.01.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No. 6416 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.4836 of 2021 and
W.M.P.No.6442 of 2023
P.Mangaibahan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
3. The Chief Administrative Officer,
Market Management Committee
Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 092
4. D.Bakthavachalu & Co.,
rep. By its Partner
E.Thanigaimalai
No.32/50 Gandhi Road,
Jaganathan Nagar,
Argumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106 ...Respondents
Page 1 / 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 6416 of 2023
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance
of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to revoke / cancel the
allotment order issued in favour of the private 4th respondent for shop no.J-97 in
Koyambedu Wholesale Vegetable Market, Koyambedu and accordingly bring the
shop for auction as to give an opportunity to the Writ Petitioner and others to
participate in the auction and get the shop allotted and pass further orders.
For Petitioner : Mr. V.K.Sathiamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan for R1 to R3
Additional Advocate General assisted by
M/s P.Veenasuresh
Standing Counsel for CMDA
Special Government Pleader
Mr.K.R.A.Muthukrishnan for R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondents herein to revoke / cancel the allotment order issued in
favour of the private 4th respondent for shop no.J-97 in Koyambedu Wholesale
Vegetable Market, Koyambedu and accordingly bring the shop for auction as to
give an opportunity to the Writ Petitioner and others to participate in the auction
and get the shop allotted and pass further orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioner, is as follows:
(i) Some of the shop owners in George town were allotted much smaller
size shops in the L M N block which did not have any proper access. Therefore,
several representations were made to the respondents to give them priority when
larger shop fell vacant. This Court directed the respondents to provide preference
to the LMN block owners as and when the shop were brought to auction. As per
direction of the court, CMDA issued notification dated 30.10.2001 as last
opportunity for allotment by conversion for the LMN blocks. The Respondent
allotted the LMN block to the 4th respondent herein without even considering the
LMN block owners vide allotment dated 28.12.2001. The 4th respondent instead
of paying the deposit amount filed vexatious litigation before this Court
contending the amount is on higher side and sought for reduction to Rs.2000 per
Sq.ft. The 4th respondent has not paid the allotment deposit amount before the
said date i.e., 30.01.2002.
(ii) Further the petitioner along with other allottees, filed a batch of writ
petitions in W.P.No.25973 to 25979 of 2001 seeking time to make payment and
this Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition by its order dated 2.08.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Again the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.43918 of 2002
contending that the sum of Rs.3000 per square feet is high, where this Court
allowed the writ petition vide order dated 11.04.2003. Challenging the order of
learned single judge, the official respondents filed Writ appeal in W.A.No. 2033 to
2040 of 2003. The Hon’ble Division Bench ordered to set aside the order of the
single judge and allowed the writ appeal stating that the writ petitioners failed to
deposit the said the amount as per notification and further held that the allotment
order stood cancelled by dismissing the writ petitions. The 4th respondent
challenging the order of division bench judgement filed the Special Leave Petition
in SLP No.Appeal (Civil). 10142 of 2007 and the same was also dismissed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(iii) Also instead of re-alloting the shop No.J-97 after the disposal of the
SLP No.10142 of 2007, the official respondent again invited the petitioner to pay
the amount for extraneous consideration and allotted the Shop No. J-97 to the 4th
respondent which is against the orders of the Hon’ble Courts, whereby the
Hon’ble courts in W.A.No. 2033 to 2040 of 2003 and SLP No.Appeal (Civil).
10142 of 2007 held that the 4th respondent is not entitled for allocation of the
shop and had held that the allotment order stood cancelled. In pursuant to the
orders of the Hon’ble Court, the official respondents ought to have re-notified the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
shop No.J-97 by way of a fresh auction on the culmination of the legal
proceedings. But the respondent authority by entertaining such illegal requests
for non-payment of initial deposit have defeated the legitimate rights of the
individual like petitioner. Then the petitioner gave several representations to the
official respondents to cancel the allotment ,which have been illegally made over
and beyond the orders of the allotment and to re-advertise the shops in
transparent manner. The Petitioner had obtained information from RTI wherein it
was stated that the 4th respondent is the partner with one Jayaraman and they
have nine shops allotted between them i.e., J-97, AP-26,G-83,E-18,A-92,G-88,E-
88 and GB-85. Therefore the petitioner provided so many representations to
CMDA but have not evoked any reply so the petitioner filed the present writ
petition.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted
the allotment made in J-97 was made after calling for the applications through
public notice in the newspapers on the first come first serve basis. The shop
no.J97 was allotted to Mr.E.Thanigaimalai, on 28.12.2001 and after a series of
litigation and orders from this Court, the shop J 97 was handed over to
Mr.Thanigaimalai on 17.07.2008, pursuant to an interim order of this Court dated
27.05.2008 in W.A.No.619 of 2008 and further, the sale deed came to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
executed in favour of Thanigaimalai on 10.10.2013. Therefore, the official
respondents 1 to 3 have made the allotment to Mr.Thanigaimalai and handed
over possession and executed the sale deed following the orders of this Court,
thereby pleaded to dismiss the petition.
4. The 4th respondent in his counter had stated as follows:-
(i) The allotment was made in favor of E.Thanigaimalai on 28.12.2001 and
sale executed was on 11.10.2013. The petitioner is challenging the allotment
order by way of writ petition in the year of 2023. The writ petitioner does not have
locus standi to maintain the writ petition as he has neither made out a case for
cancellation of allotment of Shop No.J-97 nor he had made any application for
the allotment. The sale consideration of shop No.J-97 was fixed at the rate of
Rs.3000/- per sq.ft under the NGT (Non George Town) Category and the 4th
respondent was directed to deposit initial sum of Rs.14,40,290/- (Fourteen Lakhs
Forty Thousand and Two Hundred Ninety only).
(ii) Further the 4th respondent had requested the respondents 1 to 3 to
reduce the said price from Rs.3000/- to Rs.2000/- and they had rejected the
petitioner's request on 11.11.2002 and 4th respondent challenged the said
rejection by filing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.43918 of 2002 and the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ordered by this Hon'ble Court on 11.04.2003. Similarly placed vendors whose
Writ petitions were also allowed by this Hon'ble Court on the same date.
Aggrieved against the same the respondents 1 & 2 filed the WA Nos. 2033 to
2040 of 2003 and the same was allowed by this Hon'ble Court on 09.04.2007.
Aggrieved against the same 4th respondent had filed the SLP in SLP No.10142
of 2007 and the same was disposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.06.2007.
The 4th respondent contends that he is running the vegetable business in the said
shop, at that point of time the statutory respondents imposed interest from
28.12.2001 onwards (from the date of allotment) by the communication dated
26.07.2007. The said communication was challenged by the 4th respondent in
W.P. No. 28237 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on
01.04.2008. Aggrieved against the said order he had filed the Writ Appeal No.
619 of 2008, and have been directed to pay Rs. 14,40,290/- to the CMDA and
further directed them to hand over possession of the Shop by order of Division
Bench dated 27.05.2008. Then the 4th respondent have been directed to pay
Rs. 3000/- and interest for the entire amount from 09.04.2007 as per the Division
Bench Judgment dated 08.04.2009.
(iii) Then the 4th respondent had remitted a sum of Rs.14,40,290/- on
14.07.2008 and he was put in possession of the Shop No. J-97 on 17.07.2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Subsequently 4th respondent paid the remaining amount of Rs.58,43,440/- out of
Rs.72,83,730/-. The 1st respondent executed a sale deed in favour of 4th
respondent and the sale deed dated 11.10.2013 registered as Document
No.4061 of 2013. Therefore, the present writ petition seeking for cancellation of
allotment order is vexatious in nature and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents
placed on record.
6. On going through the entire documents placed on record it is seen that
initially notification was issued calling for application for allotment of shops
including J-97 on 30.10.2001. Thereafter, allotment order of the Shop no.J-97
was made to the 4th respondent on 28.12.2001. Further, D.Rajasekaran,
R.Chenga Reddy, B.Gnanasekaran, D.Balagurusamy, P.Harikrishna Reddy,
D.Muthalagu filed W.P.M.P.Nos.38430 to 38436 of 2001 seeking to grant interim
injunction restraining the CMDA to cancel the allotment made in favour of them
and the same was dismissed by order dated 02.08.2002 on the ground that the
counsel failed to comply with the direction within the said period .
7. That apart, B.Thanigaimalai, P.Harikrishna reddy, D.Rajasekaran,
D.Balagurusamy, P.Chenga reddy, R.Govindan, J.Athian and M.Krishnaiah filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.43918 to 43925 of 2002 seeking to execute necessary documents in
respect of the shops allotted at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.ft., as has been fixed
by the respondents themselves and the Writ petitions were allowed directing the
petitioners to deposit the money within a period of six weeks. As against the
same, the authorities have filed W.A.Nos.2033 to 2040 of 2003 and the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 09.04.2007 set aside the order
of the learned single judge on the ground that the said persons being defaulters
and having not paid the amount for more than one year after taking possession,
cannot derive any advantage of their default. Challenging the same, the said
persons have filed petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil)
No.10142 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by order dated 04.06.2007.
8. It is pertinent to point out that the petitioner herein has come forward
with this petition seeking to revoke / cancel the allotment order issued in favour of
the private respondent for Shop No.J-97 which was allotted after calling for
applications for allotment of the shops at KWMC, through public notice in the
newspapers on the first come first serve basis on 28.12.2001 and after series of
litigations and orders from this Court, the Shop J97 was handed over to the
Thanigaimalai. Since the allotment made by the 1st respondent in favour of the
said Thanigaimalai on 28.12.2001, the sale deed executed on 11.10.2013, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner now challenging the allotment order by way of present Writ Petition in
the year 2023, which suffers from delay and latches. Besides the above, the
petitioner has neither made out a case for cancellation of allotment of Shop J-97
nor the petitioner made any application for the allotment of the said shop.
In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
10.01.2025
Index : Yes / No;
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
ssd
To
1. The Member Secretary
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
3. The Chief Administrative Officer,
Market Management Committee
Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Koyambedu, Chennai – 600 092
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ssd
4. D.Bakthavachalu & Co.,
rep. By its Partner
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
