AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are the allottees of the shop keepers and being the highest bidders in a public auction conducted by
the respondents - Trichirappalli City Municipal Corporation, they were given the allotment of the shops. The shops were constructed in the
complex known as Chathiram Bus Stand Water Tank. The rental were fixed in respect of the allotment and the petitioners were given specific
shops in their favour and they were also handed over the possession of the said shops. Thereafter, the petitioners sent a representation collectively
after handing over the shops in favour of the petitioners. On finding that the petitioners - shop keepers were not paying the deposit of twelve
months'' rental amount, the deposit made by them were forfeited, vide notice dated 29.12.2011. Subsequently, all the shop keepers who were
similarly placed, joined together numbering 30, sent a common representation to the Commissioner for Municipal Administration and the
Commissioner for Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation.
In that representation, they have stated that even though the auction was held on 21.01.2011, it was stated that the shops will be entrusted only
after the construction of the entire shops in the complex and on completion of all works, the shops will be handed over. Even though on the south
eastern side, there are constructions going, on constructing the toilets, the said toilet was creating nuisance to the shops. They have requested to
stop the constructions. They have also requested that the compound wall and the platform shops should be removed, so that the passengers going
in the transport and the public can have the access to the shopping complex and they have wanted to have protected water supply. They also
requested that the encroachment in the form of auto stand and petty shops to be removed. They contended that with great difficulty, by raising
loans and by pledging the jewels, for carrying on the trade, they deposited the amount and notwithstanding the same, the assurances given were not
implemented and only after fulfilling the their demands, it was agreed to sign in the rental agreement. They were also borrowed money when they
requested the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate action, no answer was forthcoming and the auction in their favour was cancelled without
any justification.
In the light of the above, considering that the shops were allotted on the basis of assurances, they requested the Commissioner and others to
convene a meeting of both parties to arrive at a workable solution and if they would go to the Court, they would be loosing the amount and the
Corporation was requested to that extent.
The said representation was signed by all the thirty shop keepers and some of whom are the petitioners herein.
In the meanwhile, the respondent Corporation brought the re-auction of the shops by proceedings dated 26.12.2011. At this stage, the
petitioners preferred a batch of writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.11112 to 11125 of 2011 and the prayer sought for in the writ petitions by the
petitioners therein was to set aside the order dated 16.08.2011 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Srirangam Division and after setting aside
the same, seeks for a direction to consider the joint representation dated 04.08.2011. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order
dated 28.09.2011. this Court, without going into the merits of the case, held that in normal course, the petitioners have to approach the civil Court,
but, however, the Commissioner of Tiruchirappalli Corporation was directed to consider their representation dated 04.08.2011.
After the same, the present batch of writ petitions came to be filed.
In W.P(MD)Nos.463 and 464 of 2012, M/s. G. Anbu Murugan and M. Arul Mani, sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging
the notice dated 29.12.2011. By the said notice, as noted already, the petitioners were directed to pay the arrears and despite reminder notice and
telegram given to them, they have not paid the amount and took possession of the shops and therefore, their Earnest Money Deposit amount was
forfeited. When the matters came up for admission on 18.01.2012, this Court granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from
confirming the successful bidder in the re-auction.
It was, thereafter, successive writ petitions were filed by different shop keepers.
In W.P(MD)No.1517 of 2012, the petitioner - I. Kaja Moideen, sought for a direction to the respondents to provide a neat and hygienic
condition to the shopping complex area underneath the Water tank near Chatram Bus Stand, Chinthamani, Tiruchirappalli, without interfering with
the petitioner''s business in shop No.26 therein. That writ petition was also yet to be admitted and it was directed to be posted along with the other
connected matters.
In W.P(MD)No.1484 of 2012, the petitioner - T.P.R. Vijayakumar sought for a direction to forbear the sealing of shop No.10 situated at
Chathiram Bus Stand, Water Tank Complex, Tiruchirappalli, till the representation dated 04.08.2011 was considered by the respondents. That
writ petition was yet to be admitted and it was directed to be posted along with other writ petitions.
In W.P(MD)Nos.1543 and 1545 of 2012, the petitioners - M/s. N. Perumal and P. Nandhini, sought for a direction to forbear the
respondents from sealing the shop Nos.23 and 9 situated therein. In those two writ petitions, this Court by interim order dated 10.02.2012 found
that the petitioners were in arrears and since they expressed the difficulties in paying the arrears and also that the respondent Corporation has not
provided the amenities and on finding that similar petitions are pending, directed the petitioners to pay the three months'' rental amount and in the
event of making such payment, the Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruchirappalli, was directed to remove the seal and permit the petitioners to
commence business.
In W.P(MD)No.1544 of 2012, the petitioner - M. Siddique Ali, again sought for a direction restraining the respondents from sealing the shop
No.33 till the order is passed by the Commissioner on the representation dated 04.08.2011 which was sent jointly by the shop keepers and as per
the direction given by this Court on 28.09.2011. In that writ petition, this Court by order dated 10.02.2012, passed a similar order directing them
to pay three months'' rental amount and to remove the seal affixed by the Corporation.
In W.P(MD)No.1717 of 2012, the petitioner - R. Subramanian sought for a direction restraining the respondents from sealing the shop No.6
until the representation dated 04.08.2011 was considered. In that writ petition, similar interim order was granted by this Court.
In W.P(MD)No.2066 of 2012, the petitioners - S. Ganesan, Suresh kumar and R.Ondimuthu sought for a direction restraining the
respondents from sealing the shop Nos.12, 14 and 32 till the representation dated 04.08.2011 was considered. In that case also, an identical
interim order was passed, viz, the petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs.63,000/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand only).
In W.P(MD)No.2861 of 2012, the petitioner - V. Sugumar, sought for a similar direction restraining the respondents from sealing the shop
No.39 till the representation dated 04.08.2011 was considered. Pending the writ petition, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the three
month''s rental amount and thereafter, directed to remove the sealing of the shop.
In W.P(MD)No.3057 of 2012, the petitioner - A. Sathik Batcha sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order
dated 10.02.2012, by which the Corporation has demanded the arrears of rental amount within three days and if they have paid the rental amount
within three days, the seal will be removed and the petitioner may be permitted to carry on his business by removing the seal. The petitioner
questioning the said order filed the said writ petition and this Court, by order dated 13.03.2012, directed to pay three months'' rental arrears and
directed the respondent Corporation to remove the seal.
On notice of this Court, the Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.02.2012 in all the writ petitions. They have also filed the typed
set of papers and the additional typed set of papers, enclosing the documents in respect of all the writ petitions.
It is the stand of the respondent Corporation that the Corporation decided to construct a shopping complex below the overhead water tank
near Chathiram Bus Stand and after obtaining proper permission from the Government, the complex was built and the construction in the ground
floor was completed during June 2010 and after completing the ground floor, the Council decided to put those shops in auction. The ground floor
contains 40 shops of different areas. The tender cum public auction was called for in respect of 40 shops situated in the ground floor and as per the
orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 03.07.2007, out of 40 shops,
24 shops were reserved for physically handicapped. The petitioners have participated in the public auction held on 21.01.2011 and they quoted
the highest bid amount. It was approved by the Council by a resolution dated 28.01.2011 and the approval and confirmation were communicated
to the petitioners and other licencees and they were directed to deposit 12 months'' licence fees on or before 31.01.2011 as per the auction
conditions by the respondent Corporation''s letter dated 29.01.2011 and they have failed to deposit the said amount.
Thereafter, the Corporation issued notice dated 01.02.2011 directing the petitioners to deposit 12 months'' licence fee on or before
04.02.2011, but the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.463 of 2012 deposited only a part of the amount and assured to deposit the balance amount.
Similar was the case in W.P(MD)No.464 of 2012. Since they failed to deposit the advance amount, final notice dated 08.04.2011 was issued
followed by a telegram dated 30.05.2011. Even after the same, since the petitioners failed to deposit the advance amount, the issue was placed
before the Council of the Corporation and as per the conditions of the auction, since there was failure to deposit the Earned Money Deposit was
forfeited including the part payment made by them.
It is stated that after completion of all works in the ground floor, those shops were brought into auction and after inspection of the said auction,
the petitioners participated in the auction. The auction was conducted for each and every one of the shops. Since even after the allotment of the
shops, they failed to pay the 12 months'' licence fees, they have forced to cancel the allotment.
It is also stated that the Corporation assured that the toilet constructed in the south eastern corner and the compound wall will be demolished
and the open space can be utilised by the licencees, yet they approached this Court with a batch of writ petitions in W.P. (MD)Nos.11112 to
11125 of 2011. this Court merely directed the Corporation to consider the representation dated 04.08.2011. The representation was considered.
It is further stated that pursuant to the auction, the Corporation has handed over the possession from 01.02.2011 for a block period of three
years upto 31.01.2014. The petitioners have failed to deposit the rental amounts. A meeting was held on 15.12.2011 with all the licencees and in
that meeting, the licencees created the problem with imaginary allegations. One of the claim was to conduct a formal opening ceremony to
inaugurate the shops and also further representation made by the licencees was rejected by order dated 06.02.2012. The petitioners by filing the
present writ petitions are unnecessarily delaying the fulfilment of the complex. The licencees other than the petitioners, are conducting their business
and hence, they are not entitled for any remedy.
The respondent Corporation also filed the photographs in support of their stand, showing that the place around the shopping complex in the
ground floor has been cleared and many of the shop keepers have opened their shops and are doing the business. Some of the petitioners namely
the shop keepers of shop Nos.33 and 34 were also doing their business and therefore, the contention that the representation dated 04.08.2011
was not considered, also cannot stand to reason.
In the order dated 06.02.2012, the respondent Corporation has given item wise reply in respect of the demands raised by the shop keepers
and in the order dated 10.02.2012, they have stated that those shop keepers who have not paid the monthly rental amount alone were sealed and
those who obtained the interim orders of this Court, were allowed to carry on the trade.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation also filed an additional typed set of documents to show that subsequent to their
obtaining interim orders, fresh notice was also issued on 18.06.2012 stating that pursuant to the interim direction, the seals were removed and the
shops were entrusted and thereafter, the petitioners did not pay the rental amount and therefore, they were directed to pay the rental amount from
February'' 2012, failing which proper legal action will be initiated.
In the light of these facts, it has to be seen whether the petitioners have made any case to entertain these writ petitions. The present writ
petitions are clear abuse of process of this Court. Earlier, in a batch of writ petitions, this Court merely directed the respondent Corporation to
consider the representation dated 04.08.2011, but on the other hand, it was clearly indicated that if they are still aggrieved, their remedy is before
the civil Court and not the writ petitions. Though the petitioners persuaded this Court by stating that it is only to consider the representation and
subsequently, some of the writ petitions were filed stating that their representation was not considered. On the other hand, the respondent
Corporation has considered the representation and answered all the grievances each by point by point and therefore, there is no justification in
maintaining those writ petitions and the relief sought for is that only such time the representation was considered, no action can be initiated.
It is also shocking to note that the petitioners after getting interim orders from this Court and removal of the seals of the shops and carrying on
the trade, once again have not paid the rental amounts to the Corporation, for which a fresh notice was given by the respondent Corporation. this
Court did not prohibit the respondent Corporation and it is always open to the respondent Corporation to take appropriate action.
It must be noted that in all these cases, the petitioners with full sense of responsibility had participated in the auction and also paid the highest
amount for getting the allotment of the shops and thereafter, put the demand after demand and pending such consideration of the demands not to
pay the amount as per the terms and conditions, it is clearly not contemplated and this Court cannot be a party to the violation of allotment
conditions. The petitioners have not made out any case. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the
petitioners fulfil the terms and conditions of the allotment of the shops within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
they will be allowed to continue to carry on business in the shops which were originally allotted and even this order is passed only because there is
an interim order of this Court with certain conditions. The petitioners are given one more opportunity to fulfil their obligations and even after four
weeks, the conditions are not complied with, the respondent Corporation is at liberty to seal their shops and bring the shops for re-auction or re-
tender. In respect of the persons who are defaulting subsequent to the interim orders, notice issued can be proceeded with and if they do not pay
the rental advance arrears, action also can be taken against them in addition to the earlier action. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are dismissed. No costs.