S.Sam Paul Ravi v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.08.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR W.P.(MD)No.13425 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10050 of 2016 S.Sam Paul Ravi : Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner, Padmanabhapuram Municipality, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay Post, Kanyakumari District.

2.Mrs.Sathyadevi : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the tender notification of the first respondent bearing No.Na.Ka.E1/5231/2015, dated 01.07.2016 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Godwin For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Pala Ramasamy For Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja ******

O R D E R

*********** [Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.] The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the tender notification issued by the Padmanabhapuram Municipality, calling for tenders for undertaking certain developmental works.

2. According to the petitioner, the Padmanabhapuram Municipality is not in a position even to pay the salary to the employees. Therefore, it would not be possible for the

Municipality to pay the amount to the contractors, in case the works are awarded. The petitioner alleged that it is only to share the profits of the contract, the second respondent issued the tender notification during the fag end of her term as Chairman of Padmanabhapuram Municipality.

3. Since serious allegations were made against the respondents and more particularly, against the second respondent, who is the present Chairman, Padmanabhapuram Municipality and in view of the case projected by the petitioner that the Municipality is not having resources even to pay salary to its employees, we issued notice to the respondents.

4. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit indicating that the Municipality is having the necessary resources to undertake various developmental works including the works notified in the tender notification dated 01 July, 2016, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.

5. The second respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit justifying the action taken by her to award the contract for various developmental works in Padmanabhapuram Municipality. According to the second respondent, the writ petitioner is an office bearer of a political party and as such, he has got axe to grind.

6. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing on 04 August, 2016, we directed the Commissioner of Padmanabhapuram Municipality to appear in person along with the records.

7. When the Writ Petition was taken up for consideration today, Mr.S.Murugesan, Commissioner of Padmanabhapuram Municipality and Mrs.Sathyadevi, Chairman of the said Municipality appeared before us. The Commissioner produced the bank account details and the tax and non-tax payment collection sheet of the Municipality, besides the details of the amount lying in various deposits. The Commissioner has also filed an additional affidavit dated 04 August, 2016 claiming that the Municipality have got enough funds to complete the works to be awarded as per the tender notification, which is challenged in this Writ Petition.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

9. The Writ Petition is filed primarily on the ground that it would not be possible for the Padmanabhapuram Municipality to pay the money to the contractors, in case the contracts are awarded, pursuant to the impugned notification.

10. The Commissioner, Padmanabhapuram Municipality and the

Chairman produced satisfactory materials before us to demonstrate that the Municipality is having adequate resources to undertake various developmental works, as indicated in the tender notification.

11. The second respondent is an elected Chairman of Padmanabhapuram Municipality. It is true that her term would come to an end by October, 2016. However, that does not mean that she is not entitled to initiate developmental works in her Municipality.

12. We have perused the tender notification impugned in this Writ Petition. It is found that 50% of the works relate to flood protection. Such works are all in public interest. The statement of income and expenses filed by the Commissioner prima facie shows that the Municipality is having the financial capacity to undertake developmental works, as shown in the impugned notification.

13. The Municipality is a local self-Government. The Municipality was constituted for better administration. It was only for the purpose of decentralizing the administration, the Municipalities have been constituted by inserting Part IX-A to the Constitution (Seventy Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992, with effect from 01.06.1993. The constitution of a Municipality is now a constitutional requirement. The Municipality is a local body constituted as an institution of self-Government. The Courts must respect the decisions taken by the Municipal Council in larger public interest. It is essentially for the Municipality to take a decision as to how its resources should be spent in a profitable manner. It is not within the province of this Court to act like a Controller and Auditor General even in matters relating to developmental works. The local body is the best Judge to decide the feasibility of undertaking such works and the manner of spending the municipal funds. We are, therefore, of the view that no interference is called for in the notification in question.

14. We hope and trust that the respondents would spend the public money only in furtherance of larger public interest.

15. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar

To The Commissioner, Padmanabhapuram Municipality, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay Post, Kanyakumari District.

+ 1 CC TO MR.SADIQ RAJA, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 42463 + 1 CC TO MR.PALA RAMASAMY, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 42421 + 1 CC TO MR.C.GODWIN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 42363 SML TE/SK-SKN/SAR-III : 12/08/2016 : 4P/5C Order made in W.P.(MD)No.13425 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10050 of 2016 Dated: 05.08.2016