← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/556/2017dismissed

A.Sheik Maideen v. The Commissioner Of

2017-01-10Honourable Mr Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU W.P(MD)No.556 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.446 and 447 of 2017 A.Sheik Maideen ..Petitioner vs.

1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Govt. of Tamilnadu Ezhilagam Annexe Building 6th Floor, Chepauk Chennai-5.

2. The Commissioner Kodaikanal Municipality Kodaikanal Dindigul District ..Respondents PRAYER:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the paper publication in Ve.Aa.No.181/Se.Ma.Tho/Dindigul/2016 dated 28.12.2016 published in daily news paper Dinamani by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently permit the petitioner to receive parking charges for the vehicles parked opposite to Bryant Park i.e., around the Nehru Statue, Kodaikanal Taluk, Dindigul District.

For Petitioner : M/s. M.Benazir Begum For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Govt. Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed challenging the auction notice dated 28.12.2016 proposing to conduct the public auction for giving the license to receive parking charges at the place situated opposite to Bryant Park and around Nehru Statue situated at Kodaikanal Municipality.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. It is seen that the petitioner is a licensee for receiving parking charges at Bryant Park, Kodaikanal Taluk in pursuant to a public auction conducted in the year 2015. It is further seen that the petitioner's license period commenced from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018. He has paid the license fee and now

exercising his right as a licensee to collect parking charges at Bryant Park. There is no dispute to all these facts.

4. However, it is the case of the petitioner that even though the petitioner was given license to collect parking charges at Bryant campus, several encroachments were put up therein by private persons thereby reducing the area of parking slot at Bryant campus, which consequently resulted in loss of collection to the petitioner. Thus, it is claimed by the petitioner that the second respondent, after making inspection, permitted the petitioner to collect parking charges even at the place opposite to Bryant Park and around the Nehru Statue as well, apart from the parking slot alloted at Bryant campus. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present impugned notification calling the tender for issuing license to collect parking charges at a place situated opposite to Bryant Park and around Nehru statue, is against the permission granted by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner.

5. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was permitted to collect parking charges for the vehicles parked opposite to Bryant Park and around Nehru Statue, admittedly, there is no written permission available to be placed before this Court. When, even according to the petitioner, such permission was given only orally by the second respondent, I do not think that such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted, that too, while considering the present writ petition challenging the auction notification.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, based on instruction, submitted that no such permission was even granted to the petitioner at any point of time and therefore he is not having any right to question the present impugned auction notification.

7.Considering all these aspects, I find that the petitioner is not having valid reasons legally sustainable to question the impugned auction notification. Thus, this writ petition deserves no merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 446 and 447 of 2017 are also dismissed.

8. If the petitioner is aggrieved against the encroachment made in the place where he was permitted to collect the parking charges, it is open to the petitioner to make representation to the authorities concerned for removal of such encroachment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the petitioner has made a representation on 06.01.2017. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2017 shall be considered and appropriate orders shall

be passed on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai-23.

To,

1. The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Govt. of Tamilnadu, Ezhilagam Annexe Building, 6th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

+1cc to M/s.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, Advocate in SR.2011 +1cc to M/s.M.Benazir Begum, Advocate in SR.2615 +1cc to the Special Government Pleader, in SR.2180 W.P(MD)No.556 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.446 and 447 of 2017 10.01.2017 cm.

PBK/SKN/SAR-III 24/01/2017 ::3P-6C: