Dismissed¶177

A.Sakthivel v. the Commissioner

Madras HC5 Feb 2026WP/26380/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

VOC daily flower market Salem Ammapet; Koodai Kadai Thittu Kadai Shutter Kadai; Salem City Municipal Corporation tender notification Na.Ka.No.L8/1238/2023 dated 30.06.2025; lease versus licence of municipal market; Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998 Section 78(3)(iii) proviso three years at a time; Section 108(2) public market fees; smart city scheme market reconstruction; Chippam-2 auction; Loganathan default Rs.9,53,40,000; 5% annual escalation G.O.Ms.No.78 MAWS 25.05.2009; Council resolutions 30.04.2025 and 27.06.2025 deposit reduction; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; writ petitions dismissed; agriculturalists EMD exclusion; Road Roko protest; W.P.No.7746 of 2020; W.P.No.35239 of 2023; W.P.No.7300 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ petitions dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

A.Sakthivel Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both writ petitions dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶177

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, described as agriculturalists selling their own produce directly, are unlawfully excluded from the impugned tender (EMD fixed at an allegedly astronomical level), and whether converting the daily market arrangement into a lease defeats the purpose of the market. +2 more

¶120

Court's answer

Vending of flowers after harvest is a commercial activity, not a continuation of agricultural activity; hence the plea that the petitioners' position as agriculturalists is aggrieved by the tender is misplaced.

¶138

Ratio / Principle

Section 108(2) does not contemplate parting with any right in the immovable property; it gives only a right to vend wares/produce in a public market on payment of a fee, and the Corporation farms out the fee-collection privilege to a third party by auction for a lump sum as consideration.

¶150

Key takeaways

Lease and licence are fundamentally different: a licensee has no right in the immovable property and a licence is not heritable unless the licensor agrees, whereas a lessee has a right, heritable within the lease period, and is placed much higher in law than a licensee.ratio¶157
It is not for the Court to dictate how the Corporation manages its finances or properties; having suffered losses under both direct fee collection and auctioned fee-collection privilege, the Corporation may adopt the lease route, and unless the Local Bodies Act prohibits such lease the Court cannot hold that the Corporation cannot lease its property.ratio¶158

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (V. Lakshminarayanan, J.), common order dated 05-02-2026 dismissing WP Nos. 26380 and 26383 of 2025 (filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for certiorarified mandamus/certiorari) challenging the Tender Notification in Na.Ka.No.L8/1238/2023 dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation for Koodai Kadaikal, Thittu Kadaikal and Shutter Kadaikal at the VOC daily flower market, Ammapet, Salem. Background: after the market was rebuilt under the Union smart city scheme, the Corporation auctioned the privilege of collecting the daily fee (one Loganathan the successful bidder for Chippam-2); on his default in the 5%-enhanced payment for 2025-2026 (Rs.9,53,40,000/- demanded in all), the Corporation invoked Section 78(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and tendered occupation of the market areas by lease, supported by Council resolutions dated 30.04.2025 and 27.06.2025 (the latter reducing the deposit from 1/3rd to about 2/3rd). Held: (i) vending flowers after harvest is a commercial, not agricultural, activity, so the agriculturalist-exclusion plea fails; (ii) Section 108(2) governs public-market fees/licences and contemplates no parting with rights in immovable property, while Section 78 governs lease of municipal immovable property — a lessee has a heritable right within the term and stands higher than a licensee; the two sections do not conflict, and absent statutory prohibition the Court cannot restrain the Corporation from leasing its property, the VOC market and its basket/thittu/shutter shop areas being immovable property; (iii) the 12-year notification, with rent fixed year-wise at 5% escalation and lapsing on non-payment of the enhanced amount (consistent with G.O.Ms.No.78, MAWS, dated 25.05.2009), does not breach the proviso to Section 78(3)(iii) capping licence/lease/rent at three years at a time. The earlier orders in W.P.No.7746 of 2020 (etc., dated 27.04.2022), W.P.No.35239 of 2023 (dated 10.01.2024) and W.P.No.7300 of 2024 (para 9) concerned fair conduct of the fee-privilege auction and the vendors' lack of proprietary right, not lease. Writ petitions dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

WP Nos. 26380 and 26383 of 2025

¶7

and WMP.Nos.29695, 29697 and 29701 of 2025

¶8

A.Sakthivel

¶9

C.Kuppusamy

¶10

V. Shanmugam,

¶11

S.Jegannath

¶12

G.Rangananan

¶13

K. Mani

¶14

S. Yuvaraj

¶15

T.Kesavan

¶16

C. Chinnakannu,

10.S. Nanthagopal

11.S. Joseph

12.S. Saravanan

..Petitioner(s) in WP.No.26380 of 2025

¶21

Vs.

¶22

M.Arumugam

¶23

__________ Page1 of 18

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶26

A.Kadirvel

¶27

A.Pichamuthu

¶28

V.Ramesh, 5. S. Krishnaraj

¶29

K. Sundram,

¶30

E.Venkatachalam

¶31

KeerthanaMathes

¶32

M. Satheeshkumar, 10.ValliKumaresan, 11.K.Vijay, 12.G. Ravichandran, 13.K.Ramesh, 14.R.Prabhu, 15.P. Mani, 16.P.Bhoopathi, 17.A. Selvakumar, 18.S.Santosh, 19.A.Sankar, 20.K. Selvakumar, 21.K.Anbu, 22.K. Mohanraj, 23.A. Yuvaraj, 24.H. Charanya, 25.M. Selvam, 26.G. Shanmugam 27.M. Bhaskar, 28.V. Lavanya, 29.S. Thayanidhi, 30.G. Srinivasan 31.P. Manikandan 32.N. Manikandan, 33.M. Deenadayalan, 34.K. Ganesan, 35.T. Sasikumar, 36.S.Matheswaran, 37.M. Vijayakumar, 38.V.Malar, 39.E. Easwaran, 40.E.Matheswari, 41.P. Kalaichelvi, 42.Proshith, 43.G.Kalaichevalvam, 44.S. Sabarinathan,

¶33

__________ Page2 of 18

¶34

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

¶35

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶36

45.V.Kumar, 46.K. Sundaram, 47.S. Parthiparaja, 48.K.Padmanaphan, 49.G. Sathyamoorthy, 50.K. Yuvan Shankar, 51.C. Prabhakaran, 52.S.Satheeskumar, 53.M.Rathnavel, 54.S.Manoharan, 55.V. Lakshmi, 56.R.Rathnavel, 57.P. Parasuraman, 58.S.Srinivasan 59.T.Chitra Mani, 60.R. Anusuya, 61.M. Gopi, 62.K.Vasanthi, 63.R. Sumathi, 64.Valliammal, 65.P. Manimaran ( 38 ) 66.A. Vijayalakshmi, 67.K.Gomathi, 68.S. Vasuki, 69.R.Santhi, 70.D. Sivagami, 71.S. Rajeshwari, 72.Kannagi, 73.P.Gomathi, 74.R. Balamurali, 75.P. Revathi, 76.M. Vinoth, 77.T. Deenadayalan 78.T. Murugesan, 79.T. Selvamani, 80.K. Sridhar, 81.V. Thangaponnu, 82.S. Manikandan, 83.P. Varadharajan, 84.S. Sundar, 85.M.Mohanraj, 86.R. Varadharajan 87.S. Vinothkumar,

¶37

__________ Page3 of 18

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶40

88.P. Allimuthu, 89.V.Malar,

¶41

...Petitioners in W.P.No.26383 of 2025

¶42

Vs.

¶43

The Commissioner

¶44

Salem City Municipal Corporation,

¶45

Salem - 636 001

¶46

The Assistant Commissioner,

¶47

Ammapet Zone,

¶48

Salem City Municipal Corporation,

¶49

Salem 636 003.

¶50

R.M.Raju,

¶51

P.Rajhu Ganesh,

¶52

G.Srinivasan Gopal,

¶53

R.Ramu,

¶54

S.Sudarsan,

¶55

M.Manikandan,

¶56

P.Karthikeyan,

¶57

10.K.Sureshkimar,

¶58

11.N.Mohan,

¶59

12.M.Senthil Kumar,

¶60

13.S.Kathiravan,

¶61

14.G.Thiyagarajan,

¶62

15.K.Sadasivam,

¶63

__________ Page4 of 18

¶64

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

¶65

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶66

16.D.Manikandan,

¶67

17.G.Balasubramaniam,

18.M.Soundharajan,

19.V.Madhu,

20.Premdas,

21.Chakravarthy,

22.C.Loganathan,

23.S.Kanagu,

24.P.Saravanan,

25.S.Diwakar,

26.P.Mani,

27.C.Balamurugan,

28.Malar,

29.C.Subramani,

30.S.Sasikala,

31.M.Subramani,.

32.M.Nandhakumar,

33.G.Sureshkumar,

34.S.Velayutham,

35.V.Ruckmangathan,

36.V.Kulandai Vel, (R3 TO R36 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2025 MADE IN

¶87

__________ Page5 of 18

¶88

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

¶89

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶90

..Respondent(s) in both petitions

¶91

WMP.50128/2025 IN WP.26380/2025 BY VLNJ)

¶92

Prayer in W.P.No.26380 of 2025: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Tender Notification issued by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.L8/1238/2023 dated 30.06.2025 in respect of Koodai Kadaikal, Thittu Kadaikal and Shutter Kadaikal at VOC Daily Market, Salem and to QUASH the same and consequently directing the Respondents to pass orders for allotment of shops in V.O.C Market, Ammapet Zone, Salem on monthly rental basis in accordance with market value or Public Works Department (PWD) rate through the Special Committee constituted in accordance with the orders passed in 7746 of 2020 etc., cases dated 27.04.2022 and the orders passed in W.P.No.35239 of 2023 dated 10.01.2024.

¶93

Prayer in W.P.No.26383 of 2025: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Tender Notification issued by the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.L8/1238/2023 dated 30.06.2025 in respect of Koodai Kadaikal, Thittu Kadaikal and Shutter Kadaikal at VOC Daily Market, Salem and to Quash the same.

¶94

For Petitioner(s) in Mr.Haja Nizar Ahmed, Senior Counsel for W.P.No.26380/2025: Mr.T.Chandrasekaran

¶95

For Petitioner(s) in Mr.G.Sankaran, Senior Counsel for W.P.No.26383/2025: Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan

¶96

__________ Page6 of 18

¶97

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

¶98

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶99

Ms.Madhurya for Mrs.N.Devi Sc for R1 and R2 For Respondent(s) in M/s. T. Sai Krishnan, I. Inian, G. Lavanya, M. both petitions: Velan, Yeshwanth Sharma P For R3 To R36 Dt. 11/12/2025

¶100

COMMON ORDER

¶101

I heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel for

¶102

Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan, Mr.Nizar Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.T.Chandrasekaran for the petitioners, Ms.Madhurya represents Mrs.N.Devi, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appears for the newly impleaded private respondents.

¶103

Shorn of unnecessary facts, the details of both the writ petitions are as follows:

¶104

2.1. There exists a flower market within the municipal limits of Salem. It

¶105

was called the VOC daily market. It is situated in Ammapet, Salem. The market consists of three kinds of shops namely, Koodai Kadai, Thittu Kadai and Shutter Kadai. The smallest of all the varieties is Koodai Kadai, where the vendors come and occupy a small space for selling flowers. Thittu Kadai is a slightly larger area where the area is demarcated by slitted enclosures and Shutter Kadai is the largest of the shops, where the shops can be closed using a shutter. This market is said to be in operation from the colonial period.

¶106

__________ Page7 of 18

¶107

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

¶108

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶109

2.2. Sometime in 2020, it was decided to pull down the existing market

¶110

and construct a new market which would caters to vendors of the three kinds of shops. The construction of the shops was under the smart city scheme evolved

¶111

by the Union of India. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents, post the new construction, auctioned the privilege of collecting the daily fee from the occupants of the shops. The auction was taken. One Loganathan was the successful bidder for Chippam-2. The person, who obtains the privilege, would permit the vendors to occupy the shop on a ‘’first come first serve basis’’. Once the vendor had sold his goods, he would vacate the place and the licensee would put another vendor in occupation of the same area. He would collect a fee from them, which entitled them, to occupy the place, and sell their flowers.

¶112

2.3. It was a condition of auction of the privilege that the auction amount

¶113

was to be paid for the first year and for the subsequent years, the person who took the privilege of auction should pay an amount of 5% more than the previous year. This was to continue for a block of three years, with the Municipal Corporation entitled to bring the privilege to collect the fee from the users again for re-auction at the end of the said period. Following this practice, the Municipal Corporation called upon the successful bidder to pay 5% more than the amount which he had bid for knocking off the privilege in his favour. Mr.Loganathan defaulted in payment of the enhanced amount. Thus, putting the Municipal Corporation to a loss. Hence, the Municipal Corporation decided to

¶114

Page8 of 18

¶115

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

¶116

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶117

invoke Section 78 (3) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and conduct an auction for the occupation of the areas in the VOC flower market by way of lease. It is this Tender Notification which is under challenge in both the writ petitions.

¶118

Opening the arguments, Mr.G.Sankaran, urged as follows:

¶119

(i) that the petitioners before this Court are all agriculturalists. They grow

¶120

the flowers and sell them in the market directly. Pointing out the auction condition, he states that the EMD amount has been fixed at an astronomical level, literally excluding the agriculturalists from participating in the auction.

¶121

(ii) he draws the attention of this Court to the earlier orders passed in W.P.NO.7746 of 2020, W.P.No.35239 of 2023 and W.P.No.7300 of 2024 to urge that this Court has always come to the rescue of agriculturalists and if the proposed tender goes through, it will go against the grain of these judgments.

¶122

(iii) He points out that VOC flower market has always been a daily market and by the impugned tender, it is sought to be converted into a lease of immovable property for a block period of 12 years, with which the writ petitioners will find hard to compete.

¶123

(iv) He also states that the purpose of the market is to enable

¶124

agriculturalists to sell their produce directly and if the lease goes through tender,

¶125

Page9 of 18

¶126

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

¶127

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶128

the very purpose of the market will be defeated.

¶129

Adopting all these arguments, in addition, Mr.N.A.Nizar Ahmed, refers

¶130

to Section 108 of the Urban Local Bodies Act to state that under Sub Section (2), the Corporation can only collect fees from persons using the public market and the section does not contemplate a lease of the public market.

¶131

Mr.Sai Krishnan, by way of reply, points out that the petitioners are free to participate in the auction and that the purpose of the auction is to augment the income of the Corporation. Rejecting the arguments on Section 108, he urges that Section 108(2) would apply only in case of license, but what has been contemplated here is the situation of a lease and hence, it is Section 78 which should operate. He states that Chapter VI of the Urban Local Bodies Act deals with several topics, of which Sections 73 to 79 deal with the properties of a local body and Sections 102 to 117 deals with licences and fees. Where it is a situation of lease, he urges that Section 78 should operate and not Section 108.

¶132

Ms.Madhuriya appearing for Mrs.N.Devi, states that the Corporation decided to go for auction in order to augment its revenue. She adds that the impugned tender is supported by a resolution passed by the Council on 30.04.2025. She states that the Corporation is not insensitive to the plea of the farmers and vendors. The value of the lease has been determined on the basis of

¶133

Page10 of 18

¶134

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

¶135

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶136

the market guideline value and that, taking into consideration the fall in demand, the Corporation decided to revise the fixation of the deposit amount and reduced it from 1/3rd to 2/3rd approximately from the value of the actual existing deposit amount. This too is as per the Council resolution dated 27.06.2025. Referring to paragraph 30 of the counter affidavit, she states that the vendors of the VOC daily market conducted a Road Roko and sit-in protest for the very same relief for which the writ petition has been filed and that the said protests were led by defaulter Thiru.Loganathan, the previous lessee. She adds being a policy decision of the Corporation, she states that this Court should not interfere with the same.

¶137

I have carefully considered the submission of both sides and have gone through the records and applicable laws.

¶138

First, I will take up the plea of Mr.G.Sankaran and Mr.Nizar Ahmed that the petitioners are agriculturalists. The process of agriculture commences with the planting and stops with the harvest. Once the harvest has been reaped, it is not retained by the farmers for their own consumption but it is sold either by them through traders or directly. In either case, it is not a continuation of an agricultural activity but a commercial activity. Hence, to plead that vending of flowers is an agricultural activity is misplaced.

¶139

__________ Page11 of 18

¶140

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

¶141

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶142

Secondly, the previous judgments, which have been referred to by both

¶143

the Senior Counsel point out that the Corporation would have to hold the auction for grant of license in a fair manner so as to not result in exclusion of participation by agriculturalists. In fact, when the matter was argued in W.P.No.7300 of 2024, this Court in paragraph no.9 had held that the vendors shall market their products in the place allotted by the lease right holder, namely the contractor, and vendors cannot claim any right over the shop, since it is allotted on a “first come first serve basis’’. It also held that a contractor can collect toll from the vendors who are having their shops in and around 15 m of the daily market, as long as their business does not cause any hindrance to traffic. It was in those circumstances that this Court upheld the decision to grant the privilege to collect the fee in favour of Mr.Loganathan, the erstwhile successful bidder in the auction, who took the privilege to collect the toll / fee / license fee in auction.

¶144

The present situation came about because Mr.Loganathan, despite being strengthened by an order of this Court, defaulted in payment of the enhanced privilege amount for the period 2025-2026. The Corporation informed him that to continue the right to collect the toll from vendors in the VOC market,

¶145

Mr. Loganathan would have to pay Rs.7,42,35,000/- and a sum of Rs.2,11,05,000/- in all amounting to Rs.9,53,40,000/-. Yet, he did not remit the amounts.

¶146

__________ Page12 of 18

¶147

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

¶148

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶149

Finding that auctioning the privilege to collect the fee was resulting in a loss, the Corporation decided not to resort to Section 108 but treat the VOC market as an immovable property and resort to Section 78 of the Urban Local Bodies Act.

¶150

As pointed above, Mr.Nizar Ahmed urges Section 108 alone must be adopted and not Section 78. Let me now test this arguments. Under Section 108 of the Local Bodies Act, any market acquired, constructed, repaired or maintained out of municipal funds is deemed to be a public market. This Section also empowers the Council to establish any place as a public market for the sale or purchase of any commodity within the municipal limits and collect fees from any person for using the place so established as a market. A perusal of Section 108 (2) makes it clear that it does not contemplate parting with any right in the immovable property, but only gives a right to a person to vend his wares / produce in a public market established for the said purpose on payment of a fee. It is this privilege to collect fees, that the Corporation, instead of collecting the fee by itself, farms out this right / privilege to a third party such as Mr.Loganathan referred to above. As a consideration for farming out this privilege, the Corporation collects a lump sum amount in the said auction.

¶151

__________ Page13 of 18

¶152

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

¶153

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶154

The Municipal Council, in its wisdom, has come to a conclusion that

¶155

farming of such right insofar as VOC flower market is concerned, is putting it to

¶156

a loss and therefore decided to go in for Section 78. The very texture of Section

¶157

78 and Section 108 are different. Under Section 108, a person who is vending his produce in a market established for the said purpose does not have a right in the market or in the immovable property. However, in the case of Section 78, a person who takes the area in auction does so as a lessee. The difference between lease and license has been settled. For the sake of this case I will reiterate the same. A licensee is not given a right in the immovable property, whereas the lessee does have a right. In the case of a license, it is not heritable unless and until the licensor agrees to it. In the case of a lease, it is heritable within the period of lease granted. A lessee is placed much higher in law than a licensee.

¶158

It is not for this Court to dictate how a Corporation should manage its finances or its properties. Initially, the Corporation had adopted the licensing route by collecting the fee by itself. Thereafter, it had gone about auctioning of the privilege to collect the fee. In both cases, the Salem Corporation came to a conclusion that it was suffering a loss. Hence, it has decided to take the route of going in for lease by way of auction. Unless and until the Local Bodies Act prohibits such lease, I am afraid this Court cannot hold that the Corporation cannot go in for lease of its property.

¶159

__________ Page14 of 18

¶160

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

¶161

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶162

It cannot be urged that the VOC market is not an immovable property. Neither can it be urged that the area reserved for basket shops, Thittu Kadai or shutter shops are not portions of the immovable property and thereby, subsumed under the definition.

¶163

When this aspect was pointed out, both the Senior Counsels urged that the lease is proposed to be granted in contravention of Section 78(3)(iii) proviso. The proviso reads as follows:-

¶164

“ The Council may grant license, lease or rent out the land or building belonging to it for use and occupation for a period not exceeding twelve years, in the case of commercial shopping complexes: provided that no such license, lease or rent out shall be granted for a period exceeding three years at a time.”

¶165

Under the proviso, the Corporation is barred from granting a license, lease or rent for a period exceeding three year at a time. This is a restriction on the power of the Corporation. A lease cannot be granted for a period of three years and above in a single auction. A perusal of the auction notification in the case on hand shows that the auction is being conducted for a period of 12 years, treating the amount paid till 31.03.2026 as the lease amount for a period of one year, with enhancement of the same by way of 5% for the subsequent years. The Government had passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.78, (Municipal Administration

¶166

and Water Supply Department) dated 25.05.2009, directing the local bodies to

¶167

Page15 of 18

¶168

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

¶169

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶170

grant lease for a period of one year, while imposing a condition that it would be extended for a period of three years with enhanced lease amount of 5% for the period of the second and third year.

¶171

A reading of this notification shows that the impugned tender has not been granted entirely for a period of 12 years. To give an example, if a person takes shop no.1 for lease under the notification for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and does not pay the enhanced amount of 5% in order to continue the lease for the second year, he would not be entitled to continue the lease into the second year. The same logic would go on for the third year till the end of the lease period. This shows that the Corporation has not violated the proviso to Section 78(3) (iii). Taking into consideration the difficulties that would be expressed by the vendors, it is not collecting the lease amount in one go for a period of three years, but it is staggering the same to the benefit of the vendors.

¶172

Turning to the point on Section 108(2), I am entirely in agreement with Mr.Sai Krishnan. A reading of Section 108(2) indicates that only if the Corporation is going to collect the fee by itself, it needs to go into the licensing method. Section 108 cannot be read as conflicting with Section 78 with respect to markets. This is because it is a fundamental principle of statutory interpretation that an operation of one provision the Act cannot be held to be in conflict with the other provision of the very same legislation. As already held,

¶173

Page16 of 18

¶174

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

¶175

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶176

Section 108 applies in the case of license and Section 78 applies in the case of lease. Both being fundamentally different, the submissions of Mr.Nizar Ahmed though seems extremely attractive initially, do not withstand a closer legal scrutiny.

¶177

In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in the writ petitions. The same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶178

05-02-2026

¶179

Index: Yes/No

¶180

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶181

¶182

¶183

The Commissioner Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem - 636 001.

¶184

The Assistant Commissioner, Ammapet Zone, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem 636 003

¶185

Page17 of 18

¶186

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

¶187

WP No. 26380 of 2025

¶188

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶189

¶190

WP Nos. 26380 and 26383 of 2025

¶191

05-02-2026

¶192

__________ Page18 of 18

¶193

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Tender Notification in Na.Ka.No.L8/1238/2023 dated 30.06.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent for auction/lease of occupation of Koodai Kadaikal, Thittu Kadaikal and Shutter Kadaikal at VOC Daily Market, Salem¶92
The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation (1st Respondent) · 30.06.2025
Prior proceeding
After the old VOC daily flower market (Ammapet, Salem) was pulled down and rebuilt under the Union smart city scheme, the Corporation auctioned the privilege of collecting the daily fee; one Loganathan was the successful bidder for Chippam-2, admitting vendors on a first-come-first-serve basis for a fee¶111
Prior proceeding
Loganathan defaulted in payment of the 5% enhanced privilege amount, putting the Corporation to loss; the Corporation accordingly invoked Section 78(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 and resolved to conduct an auction of the market areas by way of lease, generating the impugned tender notification¶117
Prior proceeding
Earlier orders of this Court relied on in the prayers: orders passed in 7746 of 2020 etc., cases dated 27.04.2022 (Special Committee) and orders passed in W.P.No.35239 of 2023 dated 10.01.2024¶92
Prior proceeding
In W.P.No.7300 of 2024 this Court had held in paragraph no.9 that vendors shall market their products in the place allotted by the lease right holder/contractor, vendors cannot claim any right over the shop allotted on first-come-first-serve basis, and a contractor may collect toll from vendors within about 15 m of the daily market; on that basis the grant of fee-collection privilege to Loganathan had been upheld¶143
Prior proceeding
To continue collecting toll from vendors in the VOC market for 2025-2026, Loganathan was required to pay Rs.7,42,35,000/- plus Rs.2,11,05,000/- (total Rs.9,53,40,000/-); he did not remit the amounts¶145
Prior proceeding
Council resolution dated 30.04.2025 supporting the impugned tender (per Ms.Madhurya/Mrs.N.Devi)¶132
Prior proceeding
Council resolution dated 27.06.2025 revising/reducing the deposit fixation from 1/3rd to approximately 2/3rd of the actual existing deposit amount¶136
Prior proceeding
Per the counter affidavit, vendors of the VOC daily market conducted a Road Roko and sit-in protest for the same relief as sought in the writ petitions¶136
Prior proceeding
Private respondents 3 to 36 impleaded vide order dated 11.12.2025 made in WMP.50128/2025 in WP.26380/2025¶91
Prior proceeding
Government order G.O.Ms.No.78 (Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department) dated 25.05.2009 directed local bodies to grant lease for one year, extendable to three years with 5% enhanced lease amount for the second and third year¶166

A.Sakthivel v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sakthivel v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Baskaran Vs The Secretary to Government

S.N.L.Jayabalan Vs Arulmigu Ananda Vigneswarar

T.Selvam Vs The Additional Secretary to Government

R.Saravanan Vs the Commissioner

Rajeswari (Deceased) Vs T.V.K. Vasudevaraj (Deceased) 1. v. Sekar @ Rajasekar

Rajeswari (Deceased) 1. Umadevi Vs T.V.K. Vasudevaraj (Deceased) 1. v. Sekar @ Rajasekar