A. Jayaraman, P. Vijayakumar and V. Periyasamy vs The Commissioner, Thottiyam Panchayat Union

G. Rajasuria, J.—These writ petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to the impugned auction notice published in Tamil Daily Dinakaran dated 14.12.2008 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to allot shops to the petitioners in the shopping complex at Elurpatti.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.

A re''sume'' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this writ petition would run thus:

The petitioners have been in occupation of respective places and conducting shops. While so the Highways Department attempted to evict them. Thereupon they approached the Court and the Highways Department attempted to evict them was foiled. Thereafter, the respondent viz., the Commissioner, Thottiyam Panchayat Union, Thottiyam, Trichy District constructed a shopping complex and relating to that auction was also conducted. However, without allotting shops on priority basis to the petitioners, who were already owning shops, the respondent simply proceeds to allot the shops to some other persons. The auction also was not conducted in accordance with law.

Whereas the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners are mere encroachers and they are having no right to seek allotment on priority basis, even though for the shops newly constructed, there is no embargo for them to participate in the auction, yet they did not participate and hence in such a case they are having no right to demand that on priority basis in the newly constructed shopping complex, the shops should be allotted to them.

What I could understand from the facts placed before me is that the petitioners virtually are encroachers in the Panchayat''s land and running shops and in such a case legally they cannot demand that they should be allotted shops in the new shopping complex without any auction. However, what now the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit is that taking into consideration the fact that already they are eking out their livelihood by running shops and if the said shops are removed, the petitioners will become shopless and they would be having no source of income to eke out their livelihood, the respondent may consider their request. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would also highlight that apart from the petitioners, similarly placed four such persons were allotted shops on priority basis. If that be so, it is for the petitioners to approach the authority concerned and air their grievance.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that representations were given to the respondent on 11.08.2008.

Hence, without deciding on the merit of their claim, I would like to direct that the petitioners to appear before the respondent and air their grievance and thereupon the respondent shall consider the representations dated 11.08.2008 on merits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

I would also like to remark that the respondent also may explore the possibility of providing them some place, if possible, though not in the same shopping complex, for running their business.

With the above said observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.