Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1055 (MAD)

V. Tamilselvi v. Member Secretary

2001-09-11

K.GNANAPRAKASAM, P.SATHASIVAM

body2001
Judgment : 1. The writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.1997 made in W.P.Nos.4670, 7352 and 9085 of 1997 wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed all the writ petitions with exemplary costs. 2. Aggrieved by the publications made in the Newspaper, viz. Daily Thanthi dated 16.3.1997 calling for application from various persons commencing from 23.3.1997 to 7.4.1997 for fresh allotment of shops at Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, by way of outright sale or hire purchase or lease or tender etc., the petitioner has filed W.P.No.4670 of 1997. Likewise, in respect of publication made in ‘Dhinakaran’ dated 10.7.1997 calling for applications commencing from 13.5.1997 to 27.5.1997 for fresh allotment of the shops. The very same petitioner filed W.P.No.7352 of 1997. In W.P.No.9085 of 1997, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of the writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the letter bearing No.G/6174/97, dated 7.5.1997 issued by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-8, the first respondent herein, to quash the same and direct the respondents to deliver the Shop No.A-83, Vegetable Category, Koyambedu Whole Sale Market Complex, to the petitioner. 3. It is seen from the affidavits filed in support of the above writ petitions that the petitioner had applied for allotment of shops during 1997 for selling vegetables at Koyambedu Whole Sale Market Complex. After verifying all the formalities, the respondents had issued communication dated 11.1.1988 stating that they proposed to allot shops under hire purchase scheme and accordingly, they sought for payment of initial deposit as per Clause IV-B of the General Conditions. It is stated that initial deposits have been made as directed. Thereafter, a regular allotment had been issued since the shops had not been delivered to her, the payments could not be made and she could not pay the instalments in time. In the month of December, 1996, she had approached the authorities for regularisation of her account and at that time, the respondents have claimed that unless and until the entire instalments are paid with upto date interest, her claim cannot be considered. It is stated that pursuant to the said request the petitioner had paid some amount. At that time in view of the attitude of the respondents she had filed writ petition in W.P.No.1915 of 1997 and the said writ petition has been dismissed. It is stated that pursuant to the said request the petitioner had paid some amount. At that time in view of the attitude of the respondents she had filed writ petition in W.P.No.1915 of 1997 and the said writ petition has been dismissed. Against which she preferred the appeal and the same is pending before the Division Bench. When she approached the office of the respondents, she happened to see that the shops allotted to her are also included in the said lease of re-auction and in such circumstances, having no other remedy, filed the above writ petitions. 4. The respondents have not chosen to file counter- affidavit. 5. After considering the various averments made in the affidavit and after noting the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents viz., that the writ petitioner failed to comply with the allotment order, the allotments were provisionally cancelled and in the absence of questioning the same, ultimately, dismissed all the writ petitions as devoid of merits. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that when her money is with the respondents in respect of the shops allotted to her, they have no right to bring the very same shops for re-auction. He also contended that necessary directions, even now, may be issued to the respondents for allotment of shops based on her earlier applications. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by drawing our attention to various terms and conditions of allotment, failure to fulfil the same and the order of cancellation, would contend that the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed and no direction need be issued to the respondents. 8. Wehave carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. It is seen from the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions as well as the correspondent-orders of the respondents that though the petitioner was allotted shops even in 1988, the fact remains the petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions of allotment. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice various conditions provided in the allotment order. Page 22 of the typed set is one such allotment order which contains various conditions. As per Clause 4, the allottee has to pay quarterly instalments regularly and belated payment will attract interest at 18% per annum. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice various conditions provided in the allotment order. Page 22 of the typed set is one such allotment order which contains various conditions. As per Clause 4, the allottee has to pay quarterly instalments regularly and belated payment will attract interest at 18% per annum. Likewise, on default for more than three months from the date of due on subsequent instalments, the authority has the right to cancel the allotment. Clause 10 shows that non-compliance with any of the above conditions enumerated would result in cancellation of allotment and forfeiture if the 5% of the total amount paid by the allottee. It is not disputed that due to non-payment of instalments in time, in terms of the allotment order, provisionally the allotment order was cancelled . Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said orders. It is further seen from the order under challenge that before issuing notifications in daily papers, the petitioner was asked to pay the arrears instalments and she was also given show cause notice on two occasions. She had not availed within the time prescribed. 10. In the light of the above factual position and also of the fact that the provisional allotment has been cancelled even in 1994, she has not questioned the same before this Court, merely because she made voluntary payment with interest, as rightly observed by learned Judge, she is not entitled to any relief until the cancellation of allotment is restored or fresh allotment is made. In such circumstance, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. Accordingly, all the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would state that without allotting any shop, the respondents have no right to keep her money with them. It is made clear that any excess amount is with the respondents, they are duty bound to return the same. It is also made clear that even any shop or shops are available or vacant, it is open to the petitioner to make proper representation to the respondents. If any such representation is made, the respondents are directed to consider the same and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, suitable, necessary orders may be passed in accordance with law. 12. With the above observation, all the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. If any such representation is made, the respondents are directed to consider the same and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible, suitable, necessary orders may be passed in accordance with law. 12. With the above observation, all the writ appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected pending C.M.Ps. are also dismissed.