Mr.B.Vijayabaskar v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN WP No. 42679 of 2025
1. Mr.B.Vijayabaskar S/o.Balu, No.174, Bajanai Koil Street,Thiruppathikundram,Kancheepuram District.
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, No.78m Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
3.The District Collector, Collector Office, Kancheepuram District.
4.The Commissioner, Office of Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
(R4- Suo-motu amended as per order dated 13.11.2025 in W.P.No.42679 of 2025)
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of petitioner representation dated 01.09.2025 and to refund the lease amount for the remaining 113 days of the lease period within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondent(s):
Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader (For R1 & R2) Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Faizal Additional Government Pleader (For R3) Mr.R.A.Gopinath Standing Counsel (For R4)
ORDER
The petitioner has wrongly shown 4th respondent/The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation as The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram Municipality. Obviously, a typographical error. The rank of the fourth respondent will be amended from "The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram Municipality" to "The Commissioner, Office of Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation". The Registry is directed to carry out the amendments before issuance of the order.
2. The petitioner was a bidder for taking the right to collect fees in Rajaji Daily Market on license. He was successful in the bid. He was granted the contract for the period 2018-19 to 2020-21. The petitioner initially paid a sum of Rs. 34,70,000/-. Thereafter, he increased it by 5% and was granted an extension for a further period of one year. Unfortunately, during the course of execution of the contract, COVID-19 pandemic intervened. Hence, the petitioner could not collect for a period of 173 days. The closure of the market was on account of the directions given by the State and Central
Governments, directing lockdown to prevent the spread of the virus.
3. Finding that he could not exploit the contract for the entire period, he made a request for a refund of the lease amount. As there was no response, he came before this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 28 of 2021. The writ petition was ordered, directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents to pass orders within a period of three months. Despite the same, no action has been forthcoming.
4. In the meantime, similarly placed persons had moved the Madurai Bench of this Court and obtained an order, directing refund of the amounts for the period of 113 days, the period covered by the lockdown. The Commissioner of the concerned Municipality felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge and preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. The Bench confirmed the order of the Single Judge and directed refund. Against the said order, the Commissioner preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 7792 and 7793 of 2022. After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs on 12.02.2025. The Court granted three months time to the Commissioner to refund the amount.
5. The petitioner places reliance upon the said order and seeks a similar direction. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.R.A.Gopinath, took notice for the fourth respondent. He got instructions and reported to this Court that the Commissioner, Kanchipuram Corporation, will grant the refund for a period of 113 days, in line with the orders of the Supreme Court. As the statement of the counsel might not be fully binding
on the parties, I called upon Mr.Gopinath, to file an undertaking affidavit of the Commissioner.
6. Accordingly, when I took up the matter today, Mr.Gopinath, has filed the affidavit of the Commissioner, Kanchipuram City Municipal Corporation. The affidavit is scanned and extracted hereunder:
7. The undertaking given in paragraph No.3 is recorded.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the undertaking. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
13-11-2025 kak Note : Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendments in the cause title .
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To 1.The Secretary To Government Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department,Fort St.George,Chennai 600 009 2.The Commissioner Of Municipal Administration, No.78m Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028 3.The District Collector Collector Office, Kancheepuram District 4.The Commissioner Office Of Kancheepuram City Municipal Corporation, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kak WP No. 42679 of 2025 13.11.2025