Allowed

R.Maheswari v. The Commissioner

Madras HC30 Mar 2016WP/11431/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking renewal of a public toilet license. The High Court directed the Municipality to consider appointing the petitioner for maintenance and pay him charges for a period of one year.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and appoint him as a person to maintain the toilet for one year till 2017 with payment of appropriate charges.

R.Maheswari Vs The Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 30.03.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.No.11431 of 2016

¶6

R. Maheswari .. Petitioner

¶7

The Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality, Kancheepuram. .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to renew the lease for further period of two years from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2018 after receipt of agreed enhanced lease rent amount for the respective periods in running the new toilet and things Safe-keep room including bath room situated at northern side near Arulmighu Devaraja Perumal Koil at Chinna Kancheepuram as per notification dated 23.1.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.288/2013/A1 of the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R. Thiagarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas Addl. Govt. Pleader ORDER

¶10

Heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel who took notice for the respondent Municipality.

¶11

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to renew the lease for further period of two years from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2018 after receipt of agreed enhanced lease rent amount for the respective periods in running the new toilet and things Safe-keep room including bath room situated at northern side near Arulmighu Devaraja Perumal Koil at Chinna Kancheepuram as per notification dated 23.1.2015 made in Na.Ka.No.288/2013/A1 of the respondent.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

The petitioner was granted a license for maintenance of a Public Toilet which was constructed by the respondent Municipality. It is no doubt true in the order of allotment dated 23.1.2015, the petitioner was informed that he is entitled for extension of license period for 2016-2017 on payment of enhanced licence fee of 5% over and above the existing license fee fixed in the year 2015-2016. However, the petitioner's licence was not extended and his representations remained unanswered. Therefore the petitioner has rushed to this Court.

¶14

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Municipality submitted that a resolution has been passed by the Municipality on 12.2.2016, by which, the Municipality has taken a decision to make this subject Toilet as a free Toilet facility and the resolution reads as hereunder;

¶15

“nkYk; efh; eyd; fUjp ,dk; vz; 19 mUs;kpF njtuh$ bgUkhs; nfhapy; mUfpy; cs;s et Pd fHpg;gplk; kwWk; njtuh$ bgUkhs; nfhapy; tlg[wk; cs;s Fspay; miwa[ld; Toa et Pd fHpg;gplk; Fj;jif ,dj;ija[k; 31/3/2016 cld; Fj;jifapid Koj;J 01/4/2016 Kjy; ,ytr fHpg;gplkhf bghJ kf;fs; gad;ghl;ow;F bfhz;Ltu j Ph ;khdpf;fg;gl;lJ/ “

¶16

From the above resolution, it is seen that the respondent Municipality has taken a decision not to bring the right to maintain the Toilet for public auction. This means, either the Municipality themselves should maintain the Toilet at their cost or should employ somebody else and effect payment to the said person for maintenance and upkeep. This aspect is not clear in the resolution.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent Municipality, on instructions, would submit that that decision would be taken later and as of now, the respondent Municipality will maintain Toilet by utilising the services of a third party and payment will be effected from the Municipality funds.

¶18

If that is so, there is no reason as to why the respondent Municipality should not consider the petitioner as such person who will maintain the Toilet and the petitioner may be paid the cost of such maintenance and upkeep. This alone would be of reasonable approach, since at the first instance, the petitioner was made to believe that his licence would be extended for a further period of one year up to 2017.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent Municipality to consider petitioner's representation and appoint him as a person to maintain the toilet, for which, appropriate charges should be paid to the petitioner and such work shall be entrusted for a period of one year till 2017.

¶21

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msr
To
The Commissioner,
Kancheepuram Municipality,
Kancheepuram.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Advocate, sr.20209
+1 cc to Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, sr.20073
W.P.No.11431 of 2016
ksj co
kra 25.04.2016

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Maheswari v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Maheswari v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmana Gounder Vs The Chairman

M/s.Palayapalayam Ascs Vs The Assistant Provident Fund

P.Soundararajan, Vs The Commissioner

Minnalkodi, Vs Mrs.S.Anjadevi

Mrs.Sasikala @ Vs The Deputy Director of Health

Thangaraj, Vs The Chairman