Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 570 (MAD)

M. Natarajan v. Govt. of T. N.

2004-03-30

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM

body2004
ORDER :- The petitioners pray for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 21-1-1997 to quash the same and to direct the respondents to sell the House Nos. 2, 3, 8, 11 and 16 in LIG, in Kamarajar Colony at Nagapattinam Municipality to petitioners 1 to 5. 2. The following facts are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition :- The petitioners were allotted the respective houses in Kamarajar Colony, at Nagapattinam Municipality at different points of time, during the period from 1967 to 1970, on rental basis. 3. The group of houses constructed under the Lower Income Group Scheme were allotted to the employees of the Nagapattinam Municipality on rental basis. Though the construction was intended to be quarters for the employees of the Municipality, as the colony was established at a remote place, the employees of the Municipality were not interested in occupying the same. Therefore, the vacant houses were allotted in favour of some private persons also who are not working under the Municipality. According to the petitioners, the Nagapattinam Municipality passed a resolution on 19-8-1978 recommending the sale of the houses on hire purchase scheme to the Employees of the Municipality who have been allotted the houses. The petitioners contend that though in G.O.Ms. No. 1740, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 16-10-1981, the Government imposed a ban on such selling of the plots to private persons, the Municipalities were permitted to sell the plots to its employees. Accordingly, the houses in occupation of the Municipal employees were sold to them under the hire purchase scheme for a sale consideration of Rs. 8,674. 4. Now the petitioners also claim the same rights as given to the municipal employees. According to the petitioners, the criteria applicable to the employees of the Municipality should also be applied to the petitioners. The Municipality had also in fact passed a resolution on 29-12-1981 seeking permission for the assignment of the houses to the petitioners on hire purchase scheme. However, as no orders were passed on the resolution, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 531 of 1993 for a Writ of Mandamus to the Government to consider and pass orders on the resolution of the Nagapattinam Municipality. 5. However, as no orders were passed on the resolution, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 531 of 1993 for a Writ of Mandamus to the Government to consider and pass orders on the resolution of the Nagapattinam Municipality. 5. A learned single Judge of this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, by his order dated 12-8-1996, directed the first respondent to consider the resolution of the Municipality and the representation of the petitioners. The impugned order has been passed on 21-1-1997 rejecting the request of the petitioners. Hence the above Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on earlier occasions, the Government had permitted the local bodies to sell the houses constructed for the employees of the Municipality. The Municipality also had resolved to sell the houses to private individuals also in whose favour allotments had been made and therefore there was no basis for discriminating the petitioners and on this ground, and he prays for the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. 7. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents. He has also produced the letter of the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 21-7-1997, proceedings of the Secretary, Rural Development Department. In that letter, it is stated that in terms of the earlier policy of the Government, the houses built in the municipalities were sold to the employees of the Municipality. But the Government has now taken a policy decision in public interest not to sell the property either to the municipal employees or to private individuals. According to the learned counsel, it is not open to the petitioners to question the change of policy which was taken in public interest. Even apart from the fact that the Government has the absolute discretion on that issue, the issue has to be considered in public interest as well. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides. The houses are built only for the benefit of the working staff of the Municipality on rental basis as long as they are in service. Even the decision to sell the plots on hire purchase basis to the Municipal staff will not be a healthy policy considering the fact that it will not be possible for the Municipality to construct houses for all their employees as a continuous process and to be sold to their employees on hire purchase basis. Even the decision to sell the plots on hire purchase basis to the Municipal staff will not be a healthy policy considering the fact that it will not be possible for the Municipality to construct houses for all their employees as a continuous process and to be sold to their employees on hire purchase basis. The very construction was contemplated only for the benefit of the existing working Municipal employees and allotment is made only on rental basis. In short, the houses serve as quarters for the employees. The retiring employees have to move out of the house giving way to the waiting employees. That is the purpose for which the constructions have been made. Therefore, any decision taken to sell the houses on hire purchase basis even to the employees of the Municipality cannot be appreciated and would be against public interest. In the present case, admittedly the petitioners are private persons and not even employees of the third respondent Municipality. Therefore by no stretch of imagination can the petitioners seek to assert any right as against the Municipality or be heard against the policy decision of the Government not to sell the properties to the Municipal employees as well as private individuals. The petitioners appear to have been allowed to occupy on rental basis as at that time, some of the houses remained vacant. But that cannot place them on equal footing along with the Municipal employees, much less on a better position than the municipal employees. They cannot claim any legal right to continue even on rental basis in the event of the staff of the municipality requiring accommodation. 9. Even otherwise, the benefits extended to the employees of the Municipality cannot be extended to private individuals. The petitioners were allowed to occupy the premises only because some of the houses were vacant during the year 1970. The Municipality had extended the facility to their employees enabling them to purchase the plots on hire purchase basis. Private individuals cannot claim the same benefits. There can be no equality among unequals. 10. Therefore, there is no legal right for the petitioners to claim the privilege offered to the employees of the Municipality nor is there any legal duty for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. 11. Private individuals cannot claim the same benefits. There can be no equality among unequals. 10. Therefore, there is no legal right for the petitioners to claim the privilege offered to the employees of the Municipality nor is there any legal duty for the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners. 11. Apart from the reasonings stated above, the present policy of the Government as expressed in their letter dated 21-7-1997, is the decision not to allocate the houses on hire purchase basis even to the municipal staff. The said decision is based on sound administrative reasons and in public interest and it is clearly stated that there is no sufficient accommodation even to the municipal staff who are working now. Therefore, without any exception, all the local bodies have been directed not to resort to any decision or resolution to sell away the houses. Hence viewed from any angle, the relief sought for by the petitioners has no legal basis at all. 12. The Writ Petition is dismissed. W.M.P. No. 5240 of 1997 is also closed. No costs.