Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3520 (MAD)

R. Dison v. Executive Officer, Velankanni

2013-09-27

V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
Judgment 1. W.P.No.12437 of 2011 has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.37 of 2009, dated 14.03.2011 passed by the first respondent and consequently, direct the respondents to issue allotment orders in favour of the petitioner for shop Nos.10, 11 and 13 in "C" Block of the shopping complex constructed by the Velankanni Selection Grade Town Panchayat, forthwith. 2. W.P.No.12438 of 2011 has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.37 of 2009, dated 14.03.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to issue allotment orders in favour of the petitioner for shop No.12 in "C" Block of the shopping complex constructed by the Velankanni Selection Grade Town Panchayat, forthwith. 3. By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 4. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions, is similar in nature, both the writ petitions are disposed of, by this common order. 5. What is challenged in the present writ petitions, is a letter of communication issued by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.37/2009, dated 23.2.2011, whereby and whereunder the respondent Town Panchayat informed the petitioners that when there is no allotment of shops in favour of the petitioners, it is not required for them to pay the amounts of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only), Rs.66,600/- (Rupees Sixty Six Thousand and Six Hundred only), Rs.61,800/-(Rupees Sixty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) and Rs.61,200/-(Rupees Sixty One Thousand and Two Hundred only), as rent which were drawn on 12.02.2011 by way of cheques viz., Nos.059431, 059430, 059429 (by the petitioner in W.P.No.12437 of 2011) and 985435 (by the petitioner in W.P.No.12438 of 2011) and returned the same to the petitioners and accordingly, the impugned orders have been passed by the first respondent. 6. The petitioners claim that there are totally 38 shops, which include 20 shops in 'A' Block and 18 shops in 'C' Block and all the shops are to be allotted by way of lease through auction by Velankanni Selection Grade Town Panchayat, which are situated on the western side and eastern side of Panchayat Office to augment the income of the Panchayat. On 30.11.2010, an auction was conducted for the shop Nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18 in 'C' Block, and the same were allotted to the successful bidders. However, after taking possession, the respective bidders committed default in paying the rents for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. As there was a loss to the Panchayat due to the non-payment of rent by lessees, the Panchayat cancelled the lease after issuing due notice to the respective parties and forfeited the deposit amount and decided to conduct a fresh auction. Accordingly, fresh bids were conducted on 30.09.2010 and again on 14.10.2010. As the amount quoted was very high in the said bids, no one have participated in the said auctions. Again, one another action was conducted on 11.11.2010 and in that auction, the petitioners and others have participated. The petitioner in W.P.No.12437 of 2011 quoted for 3 shops namely, 10, 11 and 13 and he claimed that his quotes were the highest for the above said three shops and the highest quote amounts are Rs.12,500/- (Shop No.10), Rs.11,100/-(Shop No.11) and Rs.10,200/- (Shop No.12). The petitioner in W.P.No.12438 of 2011 quoted for only one shop namely, shop No.12 and his highest quote amount is Rs.10,200/-. Therefore, the bid was confirmed in the name of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.12437 and 12438 of 2011 by the Chairman and also by virtue of the Resolution No.78 of 2010, dated 16.2.2011 passed by the Chairman, Velankanni Selection Grade Town Panchayat. The petitioner in W.P.No.12437 of 2011 paid a security deposit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) each, totalling a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs only) vide (i) Demand Draft No.2022535 drawn on South Indian Bank and (ii) Demand Draft Nos.059125 and 059126 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank and also the petitioner in W.P.No.12438 of 2011 paid a security deposit amount of Rs.3,00,00/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and the said amounts have been deposited with the respondent Town Panchayat. 7. Pursuant to the confirmation of the auction, the petitioners insisted upon the allotment. But, the possession of the said four shops has not been handed over to the petitioners by the respondent Town Panchayat. 7. Pursuant to the confirmation of the auction, the petitioners insisted upon the allotment. But, the possession of the said four shops has not been handed over to the petitioners by the respondent Town Panchayat. Hence, the representations were made to the first respondent on 13.12.2010 and 12.02.2011 (by the petitioner in W.P.No.12437 of 2011) and on 10.12.2010 and 12.02.2011 (by the petitioner in W.P.No.12438 of 2011) seeking allotment orders and also for handing over the possession of the four shops, namely, shop Nos.10, 11 and 13 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.12437 of 2011 and shop No.12 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.12438 of 2011. But, no allotment order has been issued by the respondent Town Panchayat and they have decided to conduct a fresh auction for seven shops in 'C' Block as per the advice of the District Collector. Therefore, the petitioners in both writ petitions filed writ petitions in W.P.No.4072 and 4073 of 2011 seeking a direction to issue allotment orders and also for handing over the possession of the shops. This Court disposed of the said writ petitions by order dated 23.02.2011 by directing the respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to that order, the first respondent herein passed the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.37 of 2009, dated 14.03.2011 refusing to give possession of the shops stating that the auction conducted on 11.11.2010 for shop Nos.10, 11, 13 and 12 in 'C' Block did not fetch a good price comparing to the auction dated 25.11.2009 and therefore, he was directed by the second respondent to conduct a fresh auction. 8. 8. When these matters are taken up for hearing today (27.09.2013), the learned Counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the District Collector, Nagapattinam, the second respondent herein, vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3526/ngU:.3/2009, dated 05.05.2012 in and by which, the second respondent has decided to allot shops in favour of the petitioners in both the writ petitions for the lease period up to 31.03.2013 and the same was also concluded and therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitions may be closed by recording the said proceedings dated 05.05.2012, as if the said proceedings have been served on the petitioners in both the writ petitions, the petitioners reserve their right to work out the remedy in the manner known to law in respect of the future auction. 9. In the light of the above said proceedings dated 05.05.2012, the relief sought for in these writ petitions in respect of the period in question was considered and the same has been granted in favour of the petitioners, but the lease period has been lapsed on 31.3.2013. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to approach the concerned authority to claim any right if exists thereafter, including the delay on the part of the authorities in concluding the auction. It is always open to the petitioners, if they are having any grievance in the conduct of the auction, to approach the appropriate forum in the manner as contemplated under the law. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that the petitioners may be directed to co-operate in conducting the future auction and the proceedings have been issued/initiated after the lease period was over. 11. The proceedings issued by the second respondent dated 05.05.2012 and the submission made by the counsel on either side, are recorded. In the light of the above, the petitioners are given liberty to work out their remedy before the concerned authority in the manner known to law and redress their grievance, if any unresolved. 12. With the above observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 are closed.