Judgment :- K.A. Swami, C.J. Though the writ appeal is posted today for orders by the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is treated as having been posted before us, and accordingly, the writ appeal and the writ petition are heard together, because by considering the prayer made in the W.M.P. No.20001 of 1995 in W.P. No. 12525 of 1995, out of which the writ appeal arises it would amount to considering the main writ petition itself. Therefore we have taken up the writ petition along with the writ appeal, as the decision in the writ petition would dispose of the writ appeal. 2. The writ petitioner is an association known as Madurai Manager Karimedu Ram Nagar Market Anaithu Viabarigal Nala Changam represented by its General Secretary and it has sought for the issue, of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Madurai City Municipal Corporation to resort to the method direct collection of rent from the members of the petitioner sangam either on daily basis or on monthly basis as is being done in respect of other public markets in the Madurai city. 3. The members of the writ petitioner association are also carrying on their trade in the market in question namely, Ram Nagar daily market. The respondent Madurai City Municipal Corporation has been for the last several years, auctioning the right to collect fees from the vendors or persons who used to carry on their trade in the Ram Nagar daily market. Similarly for the year 1995-96 also the respondent-Corporation issued a tender notification on 9. 1995 specifying the rates which are to be collected by the successful auctioneer from the vendors or from the persons who used to carry on their trade in the Ram Nagar market in question. The tender notification further states that the conditions prescribed for the year 1994-95 also will apply for the year 1995-96. Though the auction has taken place the confirmation thereof has been stayed. As against the order staying the confirmation and issuing further direction passed on 19. 1995 in W.M.P. No.20001 of 1995, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. The tender notification further states that the conditions prescribed for the year 1994-95 also will apply for the year 1995-96. Though the auction has taken place the confirmation thereof has been stayed. As against the order staying the confirmation and issuing further direction passed on 19. 1995 in W.M.P. No.20001 of 1995, the present writ appeal is filed. 4. Mr.B.S. Gnanadesikan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that there are about 17 markets in the Madurai city and the fees from the traders and persons who carry on their trade either regularly or occasionally, are collected by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation through its staff, whereas in the case of Ram Nagar Market, auctioning of the right to collect fees is adopted, which is discriminatory. That apart it is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that without due regard to the fees prescribed by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, the auction purchaser is harassing the petty traders by collecting higher amount than the one prescribed by the Madurai Corporation and that the object of public market is not only to argument the revenue to the Municipal Corporation but also to serve the general public and therefore, it is necessary for the Corporation to collect the fee from those who used to carry on the trade in the market, through the staff of the Corporation like other markets. 5. Sec.378 of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 defines ‘public markets’ as all markets which are acquired, constructed repaired or maintained out of the municipal fund shall be deemed to be public markets. The Ram Nagar Market in question is constructed and maintained by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation. Therefore, there is no doubt that it is a public market. 6. Sec.379 of the Act deals with the powers of Municipal authorities in respect of public markets. Sec.379(l) of the Act states that the council may provide places for use as public markets. Sec.379(2) of the Act states that the Commissioner may in any public market charge and levy any one of more of the following fees at such rates as the standing committee may determine and may place the collection of such fees under the management of such persons as may appear to him proper or may form out such fees on such terms and subject to such conditions as he may deem fit. .(a) fees for the use of or for the right to expose goods for sale in such markets; Explanation: The fees under this clause shall not be levied unless the goods are actually brought into such markets. .(b) fees for the use of shops, stalls, pens or stands in such markets; .(c) fees on vehicles or pack animals carrying or on persons bringing goods for sale in such markets; .(d) fees on animals brought for sale into or sold in such markets; and .(e) licence fees on brokers, Commission agents, porters, weighmen and measurers practising their calling in such markets; .(3) such fees shall be recoverable in the same manner as the property tax. .(4) The council, may with the sanction of the Government close any public market or part thereof." In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the standing committee of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation has prescribed the fee in respect of each type of vendors. As far as the mode of collection of fee is concerned, it is left to the decision of the Commissioner of the Corporation to adopt any method which is convenient to the Corporation. No doubt it is open to the Commissioner to collect the fees as determined by the standing committee, either through its staff or through some other persons as the case may be. In case of collecting fees through such other persons, it could be only by auctioning the right to collect the fees and not otherwise, as that would be the unassailable mode to yield sufficient revenue to the Corporation. It is also open to the Corporation to adopt such method that are permissible having regard to the facts and circumstances of each market either to collect the fees through staff of the Corporation or by auctioning the right to collect the fees. The fact that in some of the markets, the Corporation is collecting the fees from the traders, through the staff of the Corporation and in the case of Ram Nagar Market Corporation is auctioning the right to collect such fees does not lead to any discrimination, because the decision in this regard would depend upon the facts and circumstances prevailing in each market. Hence, the decision of the Commissioner to collect the fees from the vendors or the users of the market through such persons, as determined by the public auction, in the case of Ram Nagar Market cannot be said to be suffering from any legal infirmity. However, the grievance made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the auction purchaser is collecting higher amount than the one prescribed by the standing committee of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, without due regard to the norms fixed by the Corporation and there is likelihood of harassing the vendors or users of the market, and in that event, the petty vendors will have to suffer without any effective remedy, cannot be brushed aside. In the very nature of things, the vendors may not have sufficient courage to complain to the Commissioner, as to the irregularity in the collection of fees or about the harassment, as they have to come to the market everyday and meet the auction purchaser. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Commissioner to employ sufficient number of his staff to supervise that the auction purchaser does not misuse the right given to him. It is also the duty of the Corporation as well as the Commissioner to ensure that the auction purchaser does not collect the fee which is more than what is prescribed by the standing committee of the Corporation. This should be made as one of the conditions while accepting the bid of the successful bidder. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: .(1) The Corporation and the Commissioner of the Corporation are entitled to auction the right to collect fees as determined by the standing committee of the corporation from the vendors or persons who used to sell their articles in the Ram Nagar Market. (2) It should be specifically stated in the order confirming the bid that the auction purchaser is not entitled to demand and collect fee higher than the one fixed by the standing committee of the Corporation and as notified in the tender notification. .(3) It should also be stated in the order confirming the bid that the auction purchaser should not cause any hardship or ill-treatment to any vendor or the users of the Ram Nagar Market. .(3) It should also be stated in the order confirming the bid that the auction purchaser should not cause any hardship or ill-treatment to any vendor or the users of the Ram Nagar Market. .(4) The Commissioner and the Corporation shall post sufficient staff to ensure that the vendors or users of the market are not subjected to any hardship or harassment and no excess fee other than the one fixed by the standing committee of the Corporation, is collected by the auction purchaser. 7. In the light of the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition, the writ appeal has to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the order dated 19. 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P. No.20001 of 1995 is set aside. If anything is done by the auction purchaser, violating the tender conditions or any one of the above conditions, it is open to the petitioner-Association also to bring the same to the notice of the Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, who shall take appropriate action as the case warrants. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos.13332 and 13635 of 1995 are also disposed of. No costs.