PATTU Vs. VELUR SELECTION GRADE TOWN PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come up with the present writ petitions for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 & 2 to forbear from evicting them from their Shops situated in the Bus Stand in Paramathi Velur, Velur Selection Grade Town Panchayat at Paramathi Velur Taluk, Namakkal District.

(2.) IN view of the fact that common issue arises in all these writ petitions, a common order is passed in these writ petitions. That apart, since the facts in all these writ petitions are similar, the facts set out in W.P.No.16349 of 2010 is set out here under: (a) The petitioner is a successful bidder in respect of shop No.6 situated in the bus stand of the Velur Selection Grade Town Panchayat for a period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011, subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. IN pursuant to the same, the petitioner was carrying on business. The third respondent on assuming office wanted to demolish the bus stand where the shop of the petitioner is situated for erecting a new bus stand although the present bus stand is in good condition and there is no necessity to demolish the same even as per the technical report of the Executive Engineer of the PWD, Namakkal. (b) The first respondent Panchayat in the year 2007 requested the Executive Engineer of the PWD Namakkal Division to give opinion regarding the structure stability of the bus stand. The Executive Engineer adviced by his letter dated 17.04.2007, that it is enough if the respondents carry out repairs to maintain the stability of the structure. However, not satisfied with the same, the first respondent under the instigation of the third respondent again on 16.05.2007 passed a resolution requesting the PWD to give no objection for the demolition and reconstruction of new building. Once again the Executive Engineer, Namakkal reiterated his position by his letter dated 30.05.2007 that there was no need to demolish the bus stand. (c) The Superintending Engineer, PWD directed the respondents to approach the Commissioner, Department of Rural Development as the latter was the appropriate authority. On 27.08.2007, once again the respondents passed a resolution requesting the Department to grant special permission for the demolition and reconstruction of the bus stand as the Panchayat had been allotted Rs.1 Crore for the construction of the said building. Again the first respondent made representation to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Salem seeking permission for the demolition of the bus stand. (d) The first respondent approached the Commissioner of Town Panchayat, Chennai through Assistant Director of Town Planning for permission to demolish the said bus stand. The Commissioner by his proceedings dated 30.07.2008 has clearly stated that the proposal for demolition must be recommended by the Namakkal District Collector. But, however the Superintending Engineer PWD who was asked to give report on the stability of the building, by the Chief Engineer (Building), PWD, gave a report totally irrelevant to the task assigned. The Superintending Engineer appears to have given a tangent report stating that the building should be demolished. (e) The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 29.06.2010 directing to show cause why he should not vacate the shop before 31.07.2010 as the panchayat has passed a resolution on 02.07.2008 for building a new bus stand after demolishing the old one. The petitioner's lease continue till March, 2011 and the bus stand was structurally not weak. The action to demolish the existing structure and to build a new construction was done due to malafide reason. (f) Though, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, it clearly establishes that the respondents had already decided to demolish the bus stand. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.

(3.) I have heard Ms.Vaigai,assisted by the Mr.Vasudevan and Mr.S.M.Loganathan, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, Mr.G.Sankaran, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent.