ARULMIGHU VIRUDHAGIRISWARAR TEMPLE Vs. COMMISSIONER VRIDHACHALAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the writ appeal arises out of the rejection of the interim order passed in the writ petition, both the writ petition and the writ appeal are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant/petitioner filed W.P. No.9616 of 2002 for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the appellant-temple to continue to run the vegetable market at the property of the temple in survey No.263/1A acre 1.05 in Vridhachalam Town.

(3.) THE further case of the appellant-temple is that they advised the respondents by letter dated 12.7.2001 not to collect any amount from the vegetable vendors either as lease or licence. However, no orders were forthcoming from the respondents. Hence, the appellant-temple sought the respondents for express permission by another letter dated 12.7.2001 to grant licence to run a private market at the property where the market was being run. However, the respondents issued a letter dated 12.2.2002 stating that the appellant-temple is not entitled to enter into direct transaction with the vegetable vendors and not to run the market. At the same time, the respondents demanded 15% of the income realised by the petitioner/appellant from the vegetable vendors as its licensees. THE respondents also began to cause threats to the vegetable vendors to vacate the place and with the view to virtually stop them from catering to the public, began to lay a compound wall alongside the boundary to prevent access of the public from the road to the market. THE respondents' action in refusing to accord express permission to use the property as a private market is illegal and liable to be interfered with by suitable redress of a direction.