← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/13949/2015disposed of

Valarmathi @ Malar v. The District Collector

2015-08-05Honourable Mr Justice R.Subbiah3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :05.08.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH W.P(MD).No.13949 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 Valarmathi @ Malar ... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Village Panchayat President, Sarugani Village Panchayat, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

...

Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in the impugned auction notice passed by the second respondent, dated 23.07.2015, stating that the auction will be conducted on 06.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent not to evict the petitioner from Shop No.3 situated at Sarugani Bus-stop, Sarugani Panchayat, Sivagangai District. For petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan Government Advocate

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notice issued by the second respondent dated 23.07.2015, in respect of the auction to be held on 06.08.2015 and consequently, direct the second respondent not to evict the petitioner from Shop No.3 situated at Sarugani Bus-stop, Sarugani Panchayat, Sivagangai District.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been running a fruit stall in the bus-stop of Sarugani Village from the year 1988. In such circumstances, the second respondent constructed eighteen shops near the National Highways with the panchayat fund and the second respondent received Rs.10,000/- per shop from the vendors and allotted the shops to them and the petitioner also remitted Rs.10,000/- and she was allotted Shop No.3 and has been paying the daily rent regularly. While so, on 05.08.2014 there was a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent and therefore, on 06.08.2014, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to vacate the said shop within 24 hours. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.16129 of 2014 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 24.09.2014, with the following

observation that "if the second respondent attempting to evict from shop, it is open to the petitioner to workout her remedy in the manner known to law" and thereafter, the second respondent issued eviction notice on 27.05.2015 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop. Aggrieved by same, once again the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.8954 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated, 07.07.2015 with the following observation that if the authority proposed to auction all the shops, the petitioner is also permitted to participate in the auction. If the authority decides to extend the lease from some of the owners, the same yardstick shall be applied to the petitioner also. Now the second respondent has issued the impugned auction notice dated 23.07.2015 fixing the auction date on 06.08.2015 and therefore, challenging the said auction notice, the petitioner has filed this present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court while passing order in W.P(MD)No.8954 of 2015 has not given any direction to the second respondent to conduct public auction, but the second respondent by misconstruing the order of this Court is now going to conduct a public auction on 06.08.2015 and auction notice was also served on the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that only with the sole motive to evict the petitioner, the present impugned auction notice has been issued and therefore, the impugned auction notice may be quashed and a direction may be issued to the second respondent not to evict the petitioner from the shop in question.

4. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the second respondent is going to conduct auction in respect of all the eighteen shops by notification dated 23.07.2015. He further submitted that in the order passed in W.P(MD)No.8954 of 2015, this Court has observed that if the authority proposed to auction all the shops, the petitioner is also permitted to participate in the auction and therefore, the petitioner can very well participate in the auction to be held on 06.08.2015 and hence, it is absolutely incorrect to state that only with an intention to evict the petitioner alone, the impugned auction notice is issued.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records carefully.

6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only with an intention to evict the petitioner, the impugned auction notice is issued, the submission of the learned Government Advocate would show that the second respondent is going to conduct auction in respect of eighteen shops including the petitioner's shop. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only with an intention to evict the petitioner alone the impugned auction notice is issued. Further, the learned Government Advocate has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has been given liberty to participate in the auction and therefore, the petitioner can very well participate in the auction scheduled to be held on 06.08.2015.

7. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to the dismissed and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

2.The Village Panchayat President, Sarugani Village Panchayat, Devakottai Taluk, Sivagangai District.

+1cc to M/S.M.Rajarajan, Advocate in SR.No 44229 TS/06.08.2015/3P - 4C KBM/SAR -lib W.P(MD).No.13949 of 2015 05.08.2015