logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 4975 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.P.(MD). No. 19382 of 2026 & W.M.P.(MD). Nos. 14346 & 14347 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI
Parties : V. Jothi Dhandayuthapani & Others Versus The Executive Officer, Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Thoothukudi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: S. Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent: K.R. Shiva Shankari, Counsel for State.
Date of Judgment : 10-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conduct lot for ground floor shops alone at Sathankulam bus stand and allot the same to the petitioners based on the representations dated 29.06.2026 and 02.07.2026 within time to be framed by this Court.)

1. W.M.P(MD)No.14346 of 2026 filed seeking permission to file a single Writ Petition is ordered.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to conduct a lot only in respect of the ground floor shops at the Sathankulam Bus Stand and to allot the same to the petitioners, based on their representations dated 29.06.2026 and 02.07.2026, within such time as may be fixed by this Court.

3. Heard Mr.S.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mrs.K.R.Shiva Shankari, learned counsel for State, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

4. By consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent Town Panchayat owns 15 shops inside the Sathankulam Bus Stand. The first petitioner was running a natural food and Ayurveda medicine shop; the second petitioner was running a sweet stall with a tea shop; the third petitioner was running a sweet stall; the fourth petitioner was running a communication and booking centre; and the fifth petitioner was running a parcel service. According to the learned counsel, the livelihood of the petitioners depends upon the income derived from the said shops.

6. While so, in the year 2023, the respondent decided to demolish the existing building and reconstruct the shops. The petitioners cooperated with the respondent in the demolition and reconstruction process. Thereafter, the respondent constructed 40 shops. According to the learned counsel, under G.O.(Ms.)No.103, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.06.2025, the existing lessees are entitled to preference, and the shops are to be allotted to them by conducting a lot, while the remaining shops are to be brought to public auction. However, in the present case, the respondent proposes to conduct a lot in respect of all the shops, as a result of which the petitioners may not be allotted shops on the ground floor. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that this Court may issue a direction to the respondent to conduct the lot only in respect of the ground floor shops and, thereafter, proceed with the auction in respect of the shops situated on the other floors. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for State appearing for the respondent submitted that the lot would be conducted strictly in accordance with G.O.(Ms.)No.103, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.06.2025, so as to extend preference to the existing lessees. However, the said Government Order does not provide for conducting the lot only in respect of the ground floor shops. In the absence of any such provision, the respondent cannot conduct the lot exclusively for the ground floor shops or allot the same in favour of the petitioners. She further submitted that the respondent has constructed the shops at the Bus Stand at a cost of Rs.5.62 crores and, therefore, the shops cannot be allotted according to the whims and fancies of any individual. The respondent is prepared to conduct the lot strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under G.O.(Ms.) No.103, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.06.2025, and in compliance with any direction issued by this Court. She also submitted that, as on date, the lot has not yet been conducted. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

9. In the light of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. However, there shall be a direction to the respondent to conduct the lot strictly in terms of G.O.(Ms.) No.103, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.06.2025, on Monday ie., on 13.07.2026. It is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to participate in the said lot.

10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. (MD)No.14347 of 2026 is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal