The Virudhachalam Town Vegetable Daily Market Merchants Welfare Association and Another vs The Commissioner, Virudhachalam Municipality and Others

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner association have filed these writ petitions for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents

from implementing the decision of closing the existing vegetable market functioning at Vridhagireeswarar Temple Nandavanam, Vridhachalam

without preceded by a statutory decision of the Municipal Council and previous sanction from the State Government as required u/s 260 of the

Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.

The grievance of the petitioner associations is that they are running vegetable market for the past 13 years, in the place belonging to

Vridhagireeswarar Temple. The temple authorities had given the place to the municipality for the purpose of running the market for rent. The

municipality is collecting the daily rent from the vendors in the market. The said market was shifted to the new market which is constructed by the

municipality at Cuddalore Road. In accordance with Section 260 (3) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act the Council has to obtain

permission of the State Government to close the market or to shift the same and in this case that has not been done and hence the respondents

should be restrained from closing the existing market.

The respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that an all party meeting was convened by the municipality on 4-10-97 to assess

the use of the public. It was unanimously decided that the daily market should be shifted immediately to the new market complex not only to

facilitate the putting into beneficial use of the daily market which was already been constructed by the municipality on their own site with huge funds

borrowed from the Government but also to reduce the heavy congestion on the road abutting the existing daily market run on the land belonging to

the temple. Section 260 (3) of the said Act requires the sanction of the Government to close down the market, not to shift the existing market to

another place and as such there is no illegality in the shifting of the market.

Mr. M. Vijayan, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the shifting of the market can be done only by the resolution of the

Council and in this case the shifting has been done, as admitted by the respondent in the counter-affidavit, pursuant to the decision taken in the all

party meeting and as such the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Once the market is shifted to a new place, it will amount to closing of

the market in the existing place and the same requires the sanction of the Government as per Sub-section (3) of Section 260 of the said Act,

Admittedly the respondent has not obtained the sanction of the Government for the closure of the market in the existing place and as such it is not

open to the respondent to close the market in the existing place.

I carefully considered the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. Sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities

Act specifies that the Council may provide place for the use as public market. In this case, admittedly the new market has been constructed at the

cost of Rs. 27 lakhs and as stated by the petitioner the shops would fetch the expected revenue by way of auction. The municipality having

incurred the expenses that too by way of loan from the Government, naturally the municipality is bound to return the loan amount. Hence the all-

party meeting was convened wherein a decision was taken that the existing market can be shifted to the newly constructed market complex in

order to avoid any further loss of revenue to the municipality and also to remove the congestion in the traffic. Even as per the averments made in

the affidavit of the petitioner, the market has already been shifted to the newly constructed complex in 1997 i.e., just prior to the filing of the writ

petition.

Sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act requires the Council to provide the place for the use of the public

market. Hence this would mean that the Council is to pass a resolution only to provide the place for the use as public market. As admitted by the

petitioner, the new market complex had been constructed and completed. It is not the case of the petitioners that the counsel has not passed a

resolution providing the place of the newly constructed complex for the use as public market before the construction was commenced. Hence there

is no dispute that the new construction of the market complex has been constructed after the Council take a decision to provide with a place for

the use of the public market. Once that is there, for putting the complex into use for the purpose for which it was constructed i.e., as the market

place, no separate resolution by the council is required. Hence the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the shifting of the market has been

done without any resolution by the Council, as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 260 of the Act cannot be countenanced.

So far as the other contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has no authority to close down the public

market without the sanction of the State Government is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the respondent, the respondent is not closing the

market. The existing market is being shifted to the newly constructed complex. Sub-section (3) of Section 260 of the said Act do not contemplate

any prior permission of the State Government for the shifting of the market place. When once it is found that the respondent has shifted the existing

market to the newly constructed complex, I am of the view that Sub-section (3) of Section 260 of the said Act is not attracted, as there is no

closing of the market involved. Hence there is no substance in this contention of the learned Senior Counsel.

For the reasons stated, the writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of any merit with cost of Rs. 1,500/- each.