Thirumurugan v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P(MD)No.24796 of 2022 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18869 & 18871 of 2022 Thirumurugan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Special Officer / Deputy Director of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business, Ramanathapuram.

3.The Secretary, Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Superintendent, Regulated Market Committee, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

5.Suseela 6.R.Anand ... Respondents 1/5

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned allotment list of shops dated 30.09.2022 published by the respondents 2 and 3 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to allot Shop No. 6 in Regulated Market Committee Building, Ramanathapuram to the petitioner, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anandhavalli For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manikkam, Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2.

Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader for R3 & R4.

Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for R5 & R6.

* * *

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The second respondent has issued tender notification dated 18.09.2022 calling for applications leasing out 21 shops in the 2/5

petition mentioned commercial shops. The subject matter of the writ petition pertains to shop No.6 in the ground floor. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The shop was eventually allotted to the fifth respondent. The petitioner's allegation is that the fifth respondent was not the highest bidder and that the tender process was subverted to make allotment in her favour.

3. I called upon the learned Additional Government Pleader to produce the original records.

4. The original records were produced before me. There is no suspicious circumstance. The application submitted by the fifth respondent appears to be the original one. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the fifth respondent does not have one year experience. This contention has been effectively countered by the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would point out that the fifth respondent registered herself under GST on 08.06.2021. She has also filed returns for the month of May 2022. That clearly indicates that the fifth respondent is having one year experience as trader and that she has cleared GST dues without any arrear.

3/5

5. I do not find any suspicious circumstance. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

21.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU To 1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

2.The Special Officer / Deputy Director of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Marketing and Agri Business, Ramanathapuram.

3.The Secretary, Ramanathapuram Market Committee, Ramanathapuram District.

4.The Superintendent, Regulated Market Committee, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

4/5

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

PMU W.P(MD)No.24796 of 2022 21.12.2022 5/5