Disposed

Karthigaisamy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC1 Aug 2023WA(MD)/1186/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment disposes of multiple writ appeals filed to set aside an order dismissing writ petitions challenging eviction from shops at Usilampatti Bus Stand. Recording the Additional Advocate General's submission regarding preference for existing lessees under Rule 316 of Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, the appeals were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals were disposed of and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Karthigaisamy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023 and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD) Nos.9075, 9077, 9078, 9079, 9082, 9084, 9086, 9088, 9089, 9090, 9091, 9093, 9094 & 9095 of 2023

¶9

W.A.(MD) No.1186 of 2023:

Karthigaisamy

... Appellant

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by the Secretary Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai-9

¶14

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Ezhilagam, Annex Building Chepauk, Chennai

¶15

3.The Commissioner Usilampatti Municipality Usilampatti, Madurai District ... Respondents

¶16

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023

¶19

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 28.04.2023, passed in W.P.(MD) No.10430 of 2023, on the file of this Court.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.M.Arjun Varman for M/s.Lajapathi Roy and Associates For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan Government Advocate for R1 & R2 Mr.V.Austin for R3

¶21

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

¶22

[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]

¶23

These writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge, dated 28.04.2023, dismissing the writ petitions in W.P. (MD) No.10430 of 2023 etc. batch filed by the appellants herein.

¶24

2. The appellants in the writ petitions have challenged the eviction order dated 19.04.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Usilampatti Municipality / third respondent, evicting them from their respective shops in Usilampatti Bus Stand.

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023

¶28

3. The case of the appellants is that they are the existing licencees

¶29

/ lessees of the shops, which were constructed in Usilampatti Bus Stand.

¶30

4. The learned Single Judge, by common order dated 28.04.2023, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants holding that the Municipal Commissioner has every power to evict the licencees / lessees even before expiry of the licence / lease period, if required.

¶31

5. Since the appellants have been evicted from their respective shops, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the purpose of filing these writ appeals is only to ensure that the appellants should be given preference while allotting new shops in the proposed shopping complex.

¶32

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that Rule 316 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, enables the Local Body to give preference when the existing licencees / lessees match the highest bid price and submit necessary documents proving their eligibility for preference as the persons, who were in

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023

¶36

occupation of the shops before demolition or reconstruction of a new bus stand shopping complex. Therefore, the appellants will be given preference while allotting new shops in the proposed shopping complex in terms of Rule 316 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2023, provided they should satisfy the requirement of the said provision.

¶37

7. Recording the above submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶38

[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.] 01.08.2023

¶39

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶40

krk

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023

¶44

To:

¶45

1.The Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶46

2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Ezhilagam, Annex Building, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023

¶50

S.S.SUNDAR, J. and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶51

krk

¶52

W.A.(MD) Nos.1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2023 and

¶53

C.M.P.(MD) Nos.9075, 9077, 9078, 9079, 9082, 9084, 9086, 9088, 9089, 9090, 9091, 9093, 9094 & 9095 of 2023

¶54

01.08.2023

¶55

Page 6 of 6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karthigaisamy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthigaisamy v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

W. Johnson Christopher, Vs Sakthivel

R.Sujin Vs the Superintendent of Police

P.Praba Vs M/s.Union Bank of India

Saravanan P Vs The Secretary to Government

Samuel Raj I Vs The Directorate of Town Panchayats

S.P.Mayan Vs M.Vijaya