On consent of respondents, the petitioners sought direction to allot shops with priority based on a prior Division Bench order. The court accepted no change occurred, permitting petitioners priority if no auction took place.
Petitions disposed of on the basis that petitioners are entitled to benefit of the Division Bench order if no auction was conducted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
W.P.Nos.8390 to 8393 of 2013
& connected miscellaneous petitions
C.Aasaithambi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8390/13
T.Selvara .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8391/13
C.Varadharajan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8392/13
Rabeeyabee .. Petitioner in W.P.No.8393/13
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Villupuram District.
2. The Commissioner,
Kallakurichi Panchayat Union,
Kallakurichi. .. Respondents in all the W.Ps.
Prayer : Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to give preference to the petitioners in the allotment of shops in the commercial complex, Durgam Road, Kallakurichi after its re-construction by renewing the lease of the petitioners for a further period of three years in the shop Nos.1 and 33 (Front side), 25 (Front side), 26,27 (Front side), 28, 29(Front Side) 30 and 31 (Front side) respectively.
For Petitioners .. Mr.P.Rajavel For Respondent-1 .. Mr.R.Rajeswaran, SPL. Government Pleader For Respondent- 2.. Mr.Era. Premnath
COMMON ORDER
Heard Mr.P.Rajavel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader accepting notice for the first respondent and Mr.Era.Premnath, learned counsel for the second respondent and with their consent, the
writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
2.The petitioners have filed these writ petitions for a direction to the second respondent/Panchayat Union to allot the shops in the commercial complex in Durgam Road, Kallakurichi, after its re-construction by renewing the lease granted to the petitioners for a further period of three years. According to the petitioners, similarly placed persons had filed several writ petitions before this Court, seeking to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 01.09.2008 and for a direction to re-allot the shops, which came to be dismissed and as against which, Writ Appeal No.1175 of 2011 was preferred and the Honourable Division Bench by a judgment dated 25.11.2013 disposed of the Writ Appeal by issuing the following directions:
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
smi
To,
1. The District Collector,
Villupuram District.
2. The Commissioner,
Kallakurichi Panchayat Union,
Kallakurichi.
+5 cc to Mr.P.Rajavel Advocate sr.7091/16
+1 cc to Government Pleader sr.7225/16
W.P.Nos.8390 to 8393 of 2013
ak(co)
aa24/02/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to priority allotment of shops after reconstruction based on previous Division Bench order.
Whether construction completion and auction conduct precluded the petitioners from filing fresh writ petitions.
Whether petitioners retain benefit of previous order if they remain in possession of old shops.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Appeal No.1175 of 2011Referred¶15
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Aasaithambi
T.Selvara
C.Varadharajan
Rabeeyabee
The District Collector, Villupuram District
The Commissioner, Kallakurichi Panchayat Union, Kallakurichi
T.S.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
