AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The first writ petition in W.P(MD)No.15425 of 2015 was purportedly filed in public interest challenging a Resolution bearing No. 1032 passed by Kodaikanal Municipality on 26.05.2014, proposing to put to auction the public pathway surrounding the Public Hall, the Lake, Anna salai and Bryant Park.
Despite the fact that the writ petition was filed in August 2015 and the Resolution impugned therein was dated May 2014, this Court granted an interim order injuncting the respondents from proceeding further on 26.08.2015, in the belief that nothing would have happened in the meantime.
Thereafter a person by name K. Radhakrishnan who participated in the auction and bagged a licence to run a shop, came up with the second writ petition in W.P(MD)No.21472 of 2015 seeking a Mandamus to issue necessary licence.
In the meantime a public spirited tourist, who visits Kodaikanal regularly has come up with M.P(MD)No.4 of 2015 seeking to implead in the first writ petition as a co-petitioner along with the Public Interest Litigation petitioner, so that the public cause could be effectively canvassed.
We have heard Mr. R. Karunanidhi, learned Counsel for the Public Interest Litigation petitioner, Mr. S. Chellapandian, learned Counsel for the one of the impleading petitioner in M.P(MD)No.4 of 2015. We have also heard Mr. E.V.N. Siva, learned Counsel for the successful bidder and Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. K. Dinesh Babu, learned Counsel for Kodaikanal Municipality.
Insofar as the Public Interest Litigation is concerned, there are two things that would disentitle the petitioner to any relief. The first is that the Resolution impugned was dated 26.05.2014. The writ petition was filed on 24.08.2015. In the meantime, the Municipality had issued a notification dated 03.07.2015, inviting tenders. The tenders were opened on 21.07.2015 and by a Resolution passed in Resolution No. 1355 dated 27.07.2015, the Municipality had accepted the highest bids and decided to grant licence to the highest bidders. In other words, on the date on which the Public Interest Litigation was filed, the auction had taken place and the Resolution of the Municipality to grant licence had already been passed.
Moreover, the petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation, has not really come up with any public interest to save the roads surrounding all these areas to be kept free of hawkers or street vendors. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of his writ petition, the Public Interest Litigation petitioner has stated that he and 32 owners of other shops were vacated from Bryant Park in the year 2007. Obviously, the place was not put to auction previously and many people were in occupation. Therefore, the intention of the Public Interest Litigation petitioner is not to keep the place clean.
Insofar as the impleading petitioner is concerned, he cannot ride on the back of the Public Interest Litigation petitioner whose motive was not really Public Interest. Therefore the Public Interest Litigation in W.P(MD)No.15425 of 2015 as well as the impleading petition in M.P(MD)No.4 of 2015, are dismissed both on the ground that the petitioners were encroachers and also on the ground that there was no public interest but private interest. Even the impleading petitioner, actually questioned the lack of transparency in the matter of conduct of auction. In other words, he is more concerned about the procedures for conduct of the auction and not concerned about keeping the place steered cleared of shops. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 are also dismissed.
Insofar as W.P(MD)No.21472 of 2015 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Municipality states that the Resolution will be implemented. The said statement is recorded. Accordingly, the second writ petition in W.P(MD)No.21472 of 2015 is closed. No costs.