LAWS(MAD)-2000-5-9

PITCHAMMAL Vs. COLLECTOR KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT NAGERCOIL

Decided On May 04, 2000
PITCHAMMAL Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, NAGERCOIL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the elected President of the Sucheendram Selection Grade Town Panchayat, to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 9.3.2000 in R.No.289/2000/P.III and to permit the Town Panchayat to collect the entry fee including the parking fee from the owners of the vehicles entering Sucheendram.

(2.) IT is stated that a representation was submitted by the public of Sucheendram to the petitioner, stating that the person who has been granted the license to collect the fees is collecting from the owners of the vehicles at higher rates and that it has given rise to lot of complaints and therefore the Panchayat itself undertake the collection on 22.3.2000 a meeting of the Town Panchayat was held. In the said meeting, it was decided that the right to collect fee from the vehicle entering Sucheendram Town shall not be put up for auction and that the same shall be collected directly by the Town Panchayat and that the Town Panchayat shall appoint ex-service men for the purpose of collecting the same. The Collector by his proceedings dated 9.3.2000 informed that there is no provision for appointing the Ex-service men to collect the fee and therefore, the Panchayat shall auction out the right as before. After the receipt of this letter from the collector, a meeting of the Panchayat Board was held and it was resolved unanimously that the Panchayat itself shall collect the fees and that as the auction had been held contrary to the decision of the Panchayat, the Council has decided to reject the highest bid of Murugesan. Thereafter, an order was passed by the collector on 29.3.2000. By this order, the Collector of Kanyakumari suspended the Resolutions dated 8.2.2000, 13.3.2000 and 24.3.2000, by acting under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. The collector also sent a report to the Government as required under Section-36 about the same. In that background, the writ petition has been filed by the President of the Town Panchayat.

(3.) IN my opinion, the 3rd respondent will not be affected in any manner if the amendment is permitted. INstead of driving the petitioner to the necessity of filing a fresh writ petition, to permit the petitioner to carry out necessary amendment, incorporating a relief with reference to the final order or further order passed by the Collector on 29.3.2000, will be the right and proper course. The amendment proceeds, as I stated already, from the same set of facts and flows from the same cause of action. It will not prejudice the 3rd respondent. Nor the Amendment would spring any surprise upon the 3rd respondent. All the facts necessary to decide the matter are there and in disposing of a writ petition, the position prevailing as on the date when the matter is taken up by the court will be the most relevant and crucial for determination of the rights of the parties. Therefore, on the date when the writ petition is taken up, we find that already an order has been passed on 29.3.2000 with reference to the subject matter of the writ petitioner and therefore, in the fitness of things, it is necessary to permit the amendment. It will not only help to prevent multiplicity of proceeding, further would advance uniformity of decision . On the ground of convenience as well, such amendment should be permitted. Further, the other respondents have no objection to the proposed amendment. The respondents cannot have any different stand with reference to the proposed amendment. Hence, the request of the petitioner for amendment is permitted and the petition in W.M.P.No. 10828 of 2000 will stand allowed. The registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment.