R.56, Rajapalayam Cooperative v. The District Collector Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.14623 of 2004 And W.P.M.P.No.17337 of 2004 R.56,, Rajapalayam Cooperative Milk Supply Society Ltd., 96, Kamarajar Nagar, Rajapalayam, through its Special Officer, D.Kasturibai ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The District Collector of Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Executive Officer, Cutralam Special Grade Town Panchayat, Cutralam.
... Respondents Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Na.ka.No.74/2001/A1 dated 09.03.2004 on the file of second respondent and quash the same and directing the second respondent to renew the lease as per Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting Public Auction Leases and Sales in Panchayats) Rules 2001 as per the renewal sought for by the Petitioner's Society dated 13-03-2004 and 16-03-2004. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr.M.Digvijaypandiyan for R1 Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Na.ka.No.74/2001/A1 dated 09.03.2004 on the file of second respondent and quash the same and directing the second respondent to renew the lease as per Rule 23 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting Public Auction Leases and
Sales in Panchayats) Rules 2001 as per the renewal sought for by the Petitioner's Society dated 13-03-2004 and 16-03-2004.
2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent
1. There is no representation for the respondent 2.
3. The petitioner society is coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, running the shop in the respondent Town Panchayat by way of lease from the year 1977 onwards and from that year all along the society is running in the same place for the benefit of the general public residing in and around area.
4.
The said lease was came to end on 31-03-2004. After expiry of the lease period, the second respondent issued a notice on 09-03-2004 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises in view of the direction issued by the Government in Public property it will be disposed of only by way of public auction. Accordingly, the impugned notice was sent. Law is well settled in respect of public property has to be disposed of only by way of public auction.
5. In the case of D.Kannan and others Vs. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and another the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 04.02.2010 made in W.A. Nos. 928 to 938 of 2002 has held that the rule or any Government Order does not recognise any right in any person who has been successful at one auction to claim a right but remain premises for ever. The Public property can be disposed only by way of Public auction. To that effect the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in AIR 2005 MADRAS 264 in the case of DCW Ltd., Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, the relevant portions of which are extracted hereunder: "14.
It is well settled in the aforesaid decisions that property belonging to the Government or an instrumentality of the State is not private property, and hence it cannot be disposed off at the sweet will of the authorities in any manner they choose. Such property can only be given by the State or instrumentality of State ordinarily through public auction/public tender as held in Selvarani's case cited supra (2005 (1) CTC 81). Public property is not largesse which can be given by the Government to anybody. Since the appellant was given the grant only as temporary occupation for a period of twelve years, they cannot insist that the grant be continued even after twelve years as of right.
the said land they should have realized that after twelve years they have to vacate the land, and it is not that they have a right to continue in possession of the land till eternity. The appellant has no monopoly over the said land, which belongs to the Government. After expiry of the lease the public property should be put to public auction/public tender after advertising it in well known newspapers having wide circulation, so that there is transparency in the matter and all eligible persons can apply. In this way, Article 14 of the Constitution of India will be complied with, otherwise it will be violated."
6. In view of the categorical law laid down in the decisions cited Supra, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition against the auction notice. Hence, the writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to participate in the auction proceedings, if any. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar msvm To
1. The District Collector of Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Executive Officer, Cutralam Special Grade Town Panchayat, Cutralam.
+ 1 cc to M/s.Mr.K.Srinivasan, Advocate,SR.49599 + 1 cc to The Govt.Pleader, SR.49721 W.P.No.14623 of 2004 And W.P.M.P.No.17337 of 2004 SSI(CO) NR 28/08/2017