Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2120 (MAD)

T. Kumar v. Executive Officer, Karur

2014-07-15

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

body2014
Judgment : 1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are lessees of the shops constructed by the respondent Town Panchayat, Karur District. 2. By consent of both parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 3. By the impugned order, the lease granted to the petitioners, which expired on June 2014, has been cancelled by the respondent Panchayat on the ground that the petitioners violated the lease conditions. The petitioners challenge the impugned order mainly on the ground the same has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners and without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to show-cause against the proposed auction. That apart, the petitioners would also place reliance on G.O.Ms.No.92, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007. The petitioners further stated that they are agreeable for reasonable increase of rent and the lease period is in force till the year 2015. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instructions submitted that the petitioners have committed serious violation of the lease conditions and sub-let the shops to certain other parties and the lease rent paid by the petitioners is only Rs.600/- and the shops would fetch the higher rents and therefore, the respondent Panchayat took a decision to cancel the same. 6. After hearing of both parties, and on perusal of the materials available on records, it is seen that prior to passing the impugned order, the respondent Panchayat has not issued any notice to the petitioners. Admittedly, the lease, which was granted in favour of the petitioners, is in force till 31.03.2015. During the subsitence of the lease, if it comes to the notice of the Panchayat, that the petitioners/lessees have violated the terms of conditions of the lease the respondent has power to cancel the lease by issuing notice to the petitioners. In the notice, the respondent Panchayat would have to specifically state which of the conditions of lease have been violated by the petitioners. Since such procedure has not been adopted by the respondent Panchayat, the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 calls for interference. Consequently, the respondent should be prevented from the proceeding with the tender-cum-auction in respect of the said five shops, which is scheduled to be held on 15.07.2014. 7. Since such procedure has not been adopted by the respondent Panchayat, the impugned order dated 18.06.2014 calls for interference. Consequently, the respondent should be prevented from the proceeding with the tender-cum-auction in respect of the said five shops, which is scheduled to be held on 15.07.2014. 7. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2014 is set aside and the respondent Panchayat is directed to issue show-cause notice to the petitioners by giving them fifteen days time to give their reply. After receipt of the reply from the petitioners, the respondent Panchayat shall conduct an enquiry and pass a reasoned order. In the light of the above direction, the respondent Panchayat is directed to post-pone the auction scheduled to be held on 15.07.2014 for a period of three weeks. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.