P.Shanthi, W/O.S.Pugazhendi, v. K.Karthikeyan,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2015 C O R A M :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Rev.Aplw.Nos.4, 5, 15, 16, 18, 23 and 24 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2015 in Rev.Aplw.SR.Nos.38385, 38388, 38394 and 38397 of 2015 Rev.Aplw.No.4 of 2015:
P.Shanthi ... Petitioner/respondent No.4 versus 1.K.Karthikeyan 2.The Member Secreatary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Chief Executive Officer Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.
4.Parithi Ellamvazhuthi
Minister for Information, Publicity, Town Planning Urban Development and CMDA etc., Secretariat, Omandurar Government Estate Chennai.
5. N.Palnisamy
6. Elumalai
7. N.Sundar
8. M.Khaja Bheer Mohammed
9. S.Jayanthi 10.S.Kathiravan 11.M.R.T.Abdul Rahman 12.S.Gowri 13.S.Gowri.
14.N.Thatchayani 15.S.Thyagarajan 16.I.Loganayagi Iruthayaraj.
17.T.Illayaraja 18.V.Ganesan 19.T.V.Raghu 20.Mariappan 21.M.Nedumaran 22.P.Mangaipagan 23.Po.Thangapandian 24.Padmanabhan 25.V.Suganthi 26.N.Nagendran 27.P.Pandiyarajan 28.S.K.P.Poongothai 29.Anandan ... Respondents PRAYER : Application filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 4 of CPC to
review the order passed in W.P.No.29197 of 2010, dated 15.12.2014, on the file of this Court.
For petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan in Rev.Appln.Nos.4 & 5 of 2015 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel in Rev.Appln.No.15 of 2015.
for Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi : Mr.M.K.Raja in Rev.Appln.No.16 of 2015 : Mr.P.Gurunathan in Rev.Appln.No.18 of 2015 : Mr.Richardson Wilson in Rev.Appln.Nos.23 & 24 of 2015 For respondents : Mr.C.Johnson for RR.2 and 3. Mr.Su.Srinivasan for R.1 *** COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice) A review is sought along with condonation of delay, of the agreed order dated 13.12.2014. What we find surprising is an endeavour to defend the alleged discretion sought to be exercised by the Honourable Minister/Ex-Chairman in allotting shops. In fact, this agreed order was passed in the circumstances where these shops were sought for allotment
through draw of lots, but on two earlier occasions, such endeavour was set at naught without giving any reasons. Thereafter, the Minister proceeded with these discretionary allotment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners more so, Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Counsel makes a valiant endeavour to persuade us that we should re-visit this issue, as even third party rights have accrued. He submits that auction is not the only methodology of making the allotment.
3. We are not saying that auction is the only option. A transparent methodology has to be followed in the context of conducting auctions for allotment of shops and thus, the draw of lots used to be conducted among the people who applied for allotment which was a fair procedure.
4. In view of all the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, despite their best efforts.
5. All the Review Applications and the condone delay petitions accordingly stand dismissed.
(S.K.K., CJ) (T.S.S., J.) 10.04.2015 ksr Copy to 1.The Member Secreatary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Chief Executive Officer Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
Rev.Aplw.Nos.4,5, 15,16,18, 23 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1,1 and 1 of 2015 in Rev.Aplw.SR.Nos.38385, 38388, 38394 and 38397 of 2015 10.04.2015