AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner is the Kodaikanal Varthagarhal Sangam. According to them, it is a registered Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 with Registration No.156/1988, Dindugul District. They filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the resolution of the Kodaikanal Municipality, dated 25.01.2010 and for a consequential direction to forbear the Municipality from taking any steps to vacate the members of the petitioner Sangam from their respective shops.
The writ petition was admitted on 04.02.2010. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay. Since no counter was filed, the interim stay was extended without specifying any outer time limit.
It is the case of the petitioner Sangam that the members of the said Society are lessees of various shops at Anna Salai in Kodaikanal belonging to Kodaikanal Municipality. During the year 2002, an auction notice was given for bringing all the shops to be allotted by public auction. The original lessees filed W.P.No.22363 of 2004 for setting aside the said auction. This Court by an order dated 05.08.2004 granted interim stay. Subsequently, on 11.09.2004, the interim stay was vacated. Aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed in W.A.No.34395 to 34397 of 2004 and the same was also dismissed by an order dated 07.10.2004. Pursuant to the order dated 07.10.2004, the Municipality issued auction notice bringing all the shops for auction in the Kodaikanal Municipality.
However, a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 28.10.2004 clarified the order dated 07.10.2004 and held that the legal heirs of the deceased lessees were confined only to W.A.No.3495 of 2004 and the issues in the other writ appeals were filed by the original lessees and therefore, all action including the sealing of the shops and eviction notice was held to be invalid.
Pursuant to the clarification issued by the Division Bench, the original lessees were restored to the shops from which they were vacated. Thereafter, the petitioner Sangam filed W.P.No.3046 of 2009 for extending the benefit of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.92 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 03.07.2007. In the meanwhile, a resolution dated 06.08.2009 was passed by the Municipal Council to construct a slaughter house for goats and the lessees were directed to vacate the shops. At that stage, the same Sangam filed W.P.(Md)No.11425 of 2009, restraining the Municipality from constructing slaughter house without getting consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. Though the petitioner claimed that the said writ petition was still pending, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to individual lessees to work out their remedies vide order dated 10.11.2009. Therefore, the petitioner was incorrect in stating that the said writ petition was pending even while the present writ petition came to be moved by filing an affidavit dated 03.02.2010.
In the resolution of the Municipal Council dated 25.01.2010, it was held that the Market at Anna Salai belonged to the Kodaikanal Municipality, wherein vegetable shops and provision store and the commercial complex were built over 100 years ago with lime, clay and mortar it was in a dilapidated condition causing threat to the life of public and tourists. Hence, it was decided to demolish the said building and to construct a modern shopping complex through auction.
The contention of the petitioner Sangam was that the Resolution passed by the Municipal council was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It was also stated that if the demolition was made, 50 families will be thrown into streets. The claim made by the Municipality that it was 100 years old was erroneous as some buildings were opened in the year 1963 and the building is in a good condition. The petitioner had also filed a suit in O.S.No.172 of 2009 restraining the Municipality from evicting the members of the petitioner Sangam except by due process and the suit is still pending.
This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for more than one reason. The earlier writ petition filed by them in W.P.(Md)No.11425 of 2009 for the very same reason was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to work out the remedies by individuals and so far no individual has filed a writ petition. The very same petitioner Sangam has filed the present writ petition challenging the Municipal Resolution. If the Municipal Council is of the view that it requires demolition and re-construction in the interest of general public and tourists, this Court cannot forestall the same only because the petitioner wants to continue in the said premises. With reference to their eviction, they have already moved the civil court that they should not be evicted except by due process. In so far as the Municipal Resolution is concerned, the Court cannot go behind the wisdom of the resolution that too in a petition filed in private interest as projected by the petitioner. Since the Municipality itself had stated that they are going to built a new commercial complex after demolishing the existing one, it cannot be said that any public interest will suffer due to the impugned resolution.
In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.