Kandasamy v. The Executive Officer,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.6120 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4818 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6121 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4819 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6122 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4820 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6123 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4821 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6124 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4822 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6125 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4823 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6126 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4824 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6127 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4825 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6128 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4826 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7568 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5913 and 5914 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7572 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5918 and 5919 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7573 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5920 and 5921 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7574 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5922 and 5923 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7860 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6076 and 6077 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7861 of 2017 and W.M.
P(MD)Nos.6078 and 6079 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7862 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6080 and 6081 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7863 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6082 and 6083 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7864 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6084 and 6085 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7865 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6086, 6087 and 6088 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7866 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6089, 6090 and 6091 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.8782 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6735 and 6736 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6981 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5507, 5508 and 5509 of 2017 AND W.P(MD)No.7798 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6073, 6074 and 6075 of 2017 KANDASAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6120 of 2017 AZHAGU ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6121 of 2017 GANAPATHY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6122 of 2017 APPADURAI ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6123 of 2017 KANNAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6124 of 2017 K.MANONMANI ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.
6125 of 2017 PERIASAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6126 of 2017 PONNUSAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6127 of 2017 IMMANUEL ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6128 of 2017 SIVASUBRAMANIAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7572 of 2017 MANICKA PRABU ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7573 of 2017 CHITHI FATHIMA ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7574 of 2017 K.SUDHA ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7860 of 2017 V.PANGAJAM ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7861 of 2017 M.CHINNAPONNU ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.
N.DHANALAKSHMI ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7863 of 2017 R.PALANICHAMY ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7864 of 2017 E.SIRAJUDEEN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7865 of 2017 S.SOUNDARARAJAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7866 of 2017 N.GANESAN ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.8782 of 2017 A.SENTHIL KUMAR ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.6981 of 2017 S.SAVITHIRI ... PETITIONER in WP(MD) No.7798 of 2017 -VS1.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER NATHAM TOWN PANCHAYAT, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
...IST RESPONDENT IN W.P(MD)Nos.6120 TO 6128/2017, 7568,7572 TO 7574/2017, 7860 TO 7864/2017 AND 8782/2017 IIND RESPONDENT IN W.P(MD)Nos.7865,7866, 6981 AND 7798/2017 THE CHAIRMAN, NATHAM TOWN PANCHAYAT, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
... IIND RESPONDENT in WP(MD) Nos.6120 TO 6128 of 2017 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATHAM TOWN PANCHAYAT, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
... IIND RESPONDENT in WP(MD) Nos.7568,7572 TO 7574,7860 to 7864/2017 and 8782/2017 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
... IST RESPONDENT IN WP(MD)Nos.7865,7866,6981 AND 7798/2017 Prayer in W.P(MD)Nos.6120 to 6128/2017 :
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot a shop to the petitioner on priority in the ground floor of the shopping complex of the respondent Panchayat situated in Natham Bus Stand, Dindigul District.
Common Prayer in WP(MD)Nos. 7568/ 2017,7572 to 7574,7860 to 7866,8782,6981 & 7798/2017:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records relating to the impugned tender notification Na.Ka.No.129/2017 dt.3.4.17 and 26.04.2017 issued by the respondents published in a daily Thinamani dated 05.04.2017 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to allot a shop to the petitioners on priority in the Ground Floor of the shopping complex of the respondent panchyat situated in the Natham Bus Stand, Dindigul District. For Petitioner in W.P(MD)Nos.6120 to 6128/17, 7568,7572 to 7574/17 : Mr.M.Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
Mr.T.Vadivelan in W.P(MD)8782/2017 Mr.R.V.Rajkumar in W.P(MD)7860 to 7864/17 Mr.V.Kannan in W.P(MD)7865,7866, 6981 & 7798/17 For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, in all W.Ps Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER W.P(MD)Nos.6120 to 6128 of 2017 have been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot a shop to the respective petitioners on priority in the ground floor of the shopping complex of the respondent - Town Panchayat situated in Natham Bus Stand, Dindigul District.
2. W.P(MD)Nos.7568, 7572, 7573, 7574, 7860 to 7866, 6981 and 7798 of 2017 have been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.129/2017, dated 03.04.2017 on the file of the second respondent and direct the second respondent to allot one shop to the respective petitioners in the ground floor of the shopping complex situated in Natham Bus Stand, Dindigul District.
3. W.P(MD)No.8782 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.129/2017, dated 26.04.2017 on the file of the second respondent and direct the second respondent to allot one shop to the respective petitioners in the ground floor of the shopping complex situated in Natham Bus Stand, Dindigul District.
4. By consent, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.
5. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, all the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.
6. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:
6.1. The second respondent - Town Panchayat leased out a vacant land situated in the southern side of Natham Bus Stand in the year 2000 on monthly rental basis to 20 persons for running the shops, initially for three years. A sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each, was paid by the petitioners to the respondent - Town Panchayat towards deposit. The petitioners put up sheds for running the shops. The lease had been renewed periodically for every three years by increasing 15% of the ground rent.
6.2. Meanwhile, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.336, Revenue Department, dated 04.09.2013, it was decided to extend Natham Bus Stand and hence, all the lease holders were requested to vacate their shops and to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the respondent - Town Panchayat, however, with an assurance that priority will be given to the petitioners at the time of allotment of shops in the newly constructed shopping complex. Accordingly, the petitioners handed over the vacant possession to the respondent - Town Panchayat during December 2013, though lease period got expired only during March 2014.
6.3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though the respondent - Town Panchayat constructed as many as 80 shops in the newly constructed shopping complex, which has been opened in March 2017, the claim of the petitioners for allotment of shops in their favour, has not been considered so far, despite several representations. Hence, the present writ petitions.
7. Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.6120 to 6128 of 2017, 7568, 7572 to 7574 of 2017 made the following submissions:
7.1. The respondent - Town Panchayat leased out a vacant land on the southern side of Natham Bus Stand on monthly rent basis to the petitioners herein for running the shops; 7.2. The lease period was initially for three years and renewable thereafter. After payment of the deposit amount, the petitioners had put up their respective shops therein; 7.3. The petitioners herein are the original allottees and they have been evicted by the respondents before the expiry of the lease period, however, with an assurance that they will be given priority while allotting new shops in the newly constructed shopping complex;
7.4. However, the respondents issued the impugned tender-cumauction notifications in respect of all the shops in the Natham Bus Stand and hence, the interests of the petitioners herein would be prejudiced;
7.5. The genuine claim of the petitioners ought to have been considered by the respondents, however, they failed to adhere to the interim orders passed by this Court to keep the respective shops vacant in their favour;
7.6. If the claim of the petitioners are not considered by the respondents, the lease holders/shop owners, viz., the petitioners herein, who vacated the shops even prior to the expiry of the lease period, could not be able to run the shops therein. 7.7. As per the interim orders of this Court, the respondents ought not to have brought all the shops for auction; 7.8. The shops which were directed to be kept vacant as per the orders of this Court, should have been allotted to the petitioners herein for running their shops.
7.9. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners prayed for allowing all the writ petitions.
8. Mr.R.V.Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners in
W.P(MD)Nos.7860 to 7864 of 2017, inter alia, contended that the respondents had issued the impugned tender-cum-auction notifications in violation of the interim orders granted by this Court and hence, prayed for quashing the same and also prayed for appropriate orders to the respondents to allot the shops in favour of the petitioners in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court.
9. Whereas Mr.V.Kannan, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.7865, 7866, 8782, 6981 and 7798 of 2017, among other things, contended that the respondents had violated the interim orders passed by this Court and further, the respondents had also given assurance to the petitioners to give priority to them while allotting the shops in the newly constructed shopping complex, however, they had issued the impugned notifications throwing to winds the claim of the petitioners. Further, he also pointed out that the petitioners had vacated the shops even prior to the expiry of the lease period, but, the respondents did not consider the request of the petitioners for priority in allotment of the shops and hence, prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
10. Per contra, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the tabular column, in which, the details of eligibility of the petitioners were given and pointed out that some of the petitioners are not at all eligible to be considered for allotment of shops in the newly constructed shopping complex in Natham Bus Stand, but, they have also come forward before this Court seeking allotment of shops. He further contended that in some of the cases, the original allottees transferred the lease in favour of others and they have also claimed the similar relief.
11. It is vehemently contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners those who were not the original allottees, had claimed the allotment under the guise of other allottees. Further, he submitted that Shop Nos.6 to 23 have been kept vacant as per the interim orders passed by this Court and therefore, the claim of all the petitioners cannot be considered by the respondents and hence, prayed for the dismissal of all these writ petitions.
12. Heard the submissions of Mr.M.Vallinayagam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.6120 to 6128 of 2017, 7568, 7572 to 7574 of 2017; Mr.R.V.Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.7860 to 7864 of 2017; Mr.V.Kannan, learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.7865, 7866, 8782, 6981 and 7798 of 2017 and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Muruganandham, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
13. At the outset, this Court deems it fit to reproduce hereunder the gist and kernel of the eligibility details as narrated in the tabular column filed by the respondent, for ready reference:
Nature of Interim order granted by this Court Sl.No.
W.P(MD)No.
Name of the petitioner Remarks 1.
6120 of 2017 Kandasamy To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
2.
6121 of 2017 Azhagu To keep one shop vacant.
Transfer from Original Allottee, viz., Shanmugam.
3.
6122 of 2017 Ganapathy To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
4.
6123 of 2017 Appadurai To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
5.
6124 of 2017 Kannan To keep one shop vacant.
Transfer from Original Allottee, viz., Jayakumar.
6.
6125 of 2017 K.Manonman i To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
7.
6126 of 2017 Periasamy To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
8.
6127 of 2017 Ponnusamy To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
9.
6128 of 2017 Immanuel To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
10.
7568 of 2017 Thangasamy To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
11.
7572 of 2017 Sivasubram anian To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
12.
7573 of 2017 Manicka Prabu To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee.
13.
7574 of 2017 Chithi Fathima To keep one shop vacant.
Transfer from Original Allottee, viz., Mubarak Ali.
14.
7860 of 2017 K.Sudha No interim order.
Original Allottee.
15.
7861 of 2017 V.Pangajam No interim order.
Original Allottee.
16.
7862 of 2017 M.Chinnapo nnu No interim order.
Original Allottee.
17.
7863 of 2017 N.Dhanalak shmi No interim order.
Wife of Original Allottee.
18.
7864 of 2017 R.Palanich amy No interim order.
Husband of Original Allottee.
19.
7865 of 2017 E.Sirajude en No interim order.
Not an Original Allottee.
[Outside of the bus stand].
20.
7866 of 2017 S.Soundara rajan No interim order.
Not an Original Allottee.
[Outside of the bus stand].
21.
8782 of 2017 N.Ganesan No interim order.
Not an Original Allottee.
[Outside of the bus stand].
22.
6981 of 2017 A.Senthil Kumar To keep one shop vacant.
Not an Original Allottee.
[Outside of the bus stand].
23.
7798 of 2017 S.Savithir i To keep one shop vacant.
Original Allottee, but transferred to Musthafa.
14. A mere perusal of the above tabulation would make it crystal clear that though there are 23 writ petitions filed by the respective petitioners seeking priority on allotment of shops in the newly constructed shopping complex by the respondent - Town Panchayat, some of the petitioners are not at all eligible to make such a claim, however, they have also filed the writ petitions and obtained interim orders to keep one shop vacant.
15. It is seen that there are totally 58 shops, out of which, 29 shops are situated in the ground floor and the remaining 29 shops are situated in the first floor.
16. As per the interim orders passed by this Court in some of the above writ petitions, Shop Nos.6 to 23 are kept vacant and the remaining shops have been brought to auction by the respondent - Town Panchayat. Accordingly, Shop Nos.6 to 23, viz., 18 shops alone are available in the newly constructed shopping complex, but, 23 writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners herein.
17. In these circumstances, this Court, to the risk of repetition, finds it appropriate to observe the following: ● This Court by virtue of interim orders protected the interests of the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.6120, 6121, 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126, 6127, 6128, 7568, 7572, 7573, 7574, 6981 and 7798 of 2017, viz., Kandasamy, Azhagu, Ganapathy, Appadurai, Kannan, K.Manonmani, Periasamy, Ponnusamy, Immanuel, Thangasamy, Sivasubramanian, Manicka Prabu, Chithi Fathima, A.Senthil Kumar and S.Savithiri, respectively.
However, in the resolution dated 12.02.2014 passed by the respondent - Town Panchayat, the names of some of the petitioners are not found place;
● However, Azhagu [W.P(MD)No.6121 of 2017], Kannan [W.P(MD) No.6124 of 2017], Chithi Fathima [W.P(MD)No.7574 of 2017] are not the Original Allottees, but, they got transfer of lease from the Original Allottees and obtained interim orders to keep one shop vacant;
● Similarly, A.Senthil Kumar [W.P(MD)No.6981 of 2017], not being an Original Allottee, but, had a shop outside the bus stand, filed a writ petition and obtained interim orders; ● Likewise, S.Savithiri [W.P(MD)No.7798 of 2017], being an Original Allottee, transferred the lease in favour of one Musthafa, but filed a writ petition and obtained interim orders. The name of the said Musthafa was also found place in the resolution dated 12.02.2014.
● Whereas K.Sudha [W.P(MD)No.7860 of 2017], V.Pangajam [W.P(MD) No.7861 of 2017] and M.Chinnnaponnu [W.P(MD)No.7862 of 2017], being Original Allottees, filed the writ petitions, however, no interim order was granted in their favour; ● N.Dhanalakshmi [W.P(MD)No.7863 of 2017], wife of Original Allottee and R.Palanichamy [W.P(MD)No.7864 of 2017], husband of Original Allottee also filed the respective writ petitions, but no interim orders were granted; ● E.Sirajudeen [W.P(MD)No.7865 of 2017], S.Soundararajan [W.P (MD)No.7866 of 2017] and N.Ganesan [W.P(MD)No.8782 of 2017], not being the Original Allottees, filed the respective writ petitions, however, they had run their shops outside Natham Bus Stand and no interim orders were also granted in their favour.
18. This Court, after carefully analysing the issue involved in these writ petitions and also taking into account the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioners in all the writ petitions, is, prima facie, of the opinion that despite the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents issued the impugned tendercum-auction notifications, dated 03.04.2017 and 26.04.2017 including Shop Nos.6 to 23, though it is stated by the respondents that the said shops were not included in the auction and therefore, this Court holds that the tender-cum-auction notification(s) issued in respect of Shop Nos.6 to 23 is/are illegal and accordingly, the impugned tender-cum-auction notifications dated 03.04.2017 and 26.04.2017 are liable to be quashed insofar as Shop Nos.6 to 23 alone.
19. At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment for the respondents to allot the Shop Nos.6 to 23 in respect of 18 persons, whose names have already been found place in the resolution
passed by the respondent - Town Panchayat and they are: Sl.No.
W.P(MD)No.
Name of the petitioner Remarks 1.
Kandasamy Original Allottee.
2.
Azhagu Transfer from Original Allottee, viz., Shanmugam.
3.
Ganapathy Original Allottee.
4.
Appadurai Original Allottee.
5.
Kannan Transfer from Original Allottee, viz., Jayakumar.
6.
K.Manonmani Original Allottee.
7.
Periasamy Original Allottee.
8.
Ponnusamy Original Allottee.
9.
Immanuel Original Allottee.
10.
Thangasamy Original Allottee.
11.
Sivasubramanian Original Allottee.
12.
Manicka Prabu Original Allottee.
13.
Chithi Fathima Transfer from Original Allottee, viz., Mubarak Ali.
14.
K.Sudha Original Allottee.
15.
V.Pangajam Original Allottee.
16.
M.Chinnaponnu Original Allottee.
17.
N.Dhanalakshmi Wife of Original Allottee.
18.
R.Palanichamy Husband of Original Allottee.
and thus, prayed for appropriate orders.
20. Taking into account the fact that the petitioners in W.P (MD)Nos.6120, 6121, 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126, 6127, 6128, 7568, 7572, 7573, 7574, 7860, 7861, 7862, 7863 and 7864 of 2017, viz., Kandasamy, Azhagu, Ganapathy, Appadurai, Kannan, K.Manonmani, Periasamy, Ponnusamy, Immanuel, Thangasamy, Sivasubramanian, Manicka Prabu, Chithi Fathima, K.Suhda, V.Pangajam, M.Chinnaponnu, N.Dhanalakshmi and R.Palanichamy, respectively, have vacated the shops which were allotted in their favour, even before the expiry of the lease period and further, their names were found place in the resolution dated 12.02.2014 passed by the respondent - Town Panchayat, this Court holds that they are entitled to get allotted the shops in the newly constructed shopping complex at Natham Bus Stand.
21. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
(i) The impugned tender-cum-auction notifications dated 03.04.2017 and 26.04.2017 are quashed insofar as the Shop Nos.6 to 23 are concerned and the respondents are directed to allot the Shop
Nos.6 to 23 [totally, 18 shops] in the newly constructed shopping complex at Natham Bus Stand in favour of the petitioners in W.P(MD) Nos.6120, 6121, 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126, 6127, 6128, 7568, 7572, 7573, 7574, 7860, 7861, 7862, 7863 and 7864 of 2017, viz., Kandasamy, Azhagu, Ganapathy, Appadurai, Kannan, K.Manonmani, Periasamy, Ponnusamy, Immanuel, Thangasamy, Sivasubramanian, Manicka Prabu, Chithi Fathima, K.Suhda, V.Pangajam, M.Chinnaponnu, N.Dhanalakshmi and R.Palanichamy, respectively, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) Insofar as the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.7865, 7866, 8782 and 6981 of 2017, viz., E.Sirajudeen, S.Soundararajan, N.Ganesan and A.Senthilkumar, respectively, are concerned, considering the fact that their names were not found place in the resolution dated 12.02.2014 passed by the respondent - Town Panchayat, the respondents shall consider their claim for allotment of shops on priority basis as and when the shops fall vacant in future.
(iii) Insofar as the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.7798 of 2017 is concerned, she has already transferred her allotment in favour of one Musthafa, whose name is found place in the resolution dated 12.02.2014 and hence, she cannot claim any right with regard to the allotment of shop.
22. In the result, (i) W.P(MD)Nos.6120, 6121, 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126, 6127, 6128, 7568, 7572, 7573, 7574, 7860, 7861, 7862, 7863 and 7864 of 2017, are partly allowed as indicated above; (ii) W.P(MD)Nos.7865, 7866, 8782 and 6981 of 2017 are disposed of as above; and (iii) W.P(MD)No.7798 of 2017 is closed as no further orders are necessary.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs;
(v) Consequently, all the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RECORD) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The District collector, Dindigul District.
2.The Executive Officer, Natham Town Panchayat, Dindigul District.
3.The Chairman, Natham Town Panchayat, Dindigul District.
4.The Special Officer, Natham Town Panchayat, Dindigul district.
+4ccs to Mr.V.KANNAN Advocate in SR. No. 89434 to 89737 +1cc to Mr.D.MURUGANANDTHAM Advocate in SR. No. 89380 +5ccs to Mr.R.V.RAJKUMAR Advocate in SR. No. 90093 +1cc to Mr.T.VADIVELAN Advocate in SR. No. 89385 +13cc to Mr.M.GNANAGURUNATHAN Advocate in SR. No. 89501 to 89513 RSB JS/GT/SAR.1/12.12.2017/11P-29C COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.6120 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4818 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6121 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4819 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6122 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4820 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6123 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4821 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6124 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4822 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6125 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4823 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6126 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4824 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6127 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4825 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6128 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.4826 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7568 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.
5913 and 5914 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7572 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5918 and 5919 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7573 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5920 and 5921 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7574 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5922 and 5923 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7860 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6076 and 6077 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7861 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6078 and 6079 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7862 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6080 and 6081 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7863 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6082 and 6083 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7864 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6084 and 6085 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7865 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6086, 6087 and 6088 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.7866 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6089, 6090 and 6091 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.8782 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.6735 and 6736 of 2017 W.P(MD)No.6981 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5507, 5508 and 5509 of 2017 AND W.P(MD)No.7798 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.
6073, 6074 and 6075 of 2017 27.11.