MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM Vs. COMMISSIONER, SIVAGANGAI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeals are filed against the batch of writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner, wherein the learned single Judge rejected the same by order dated 13.06.2011.

(2.) THE appellant in W.P.(MD)No.11453 of 2009 sought for quashing the impugned proceedings dated 30.10.2009 of the Commissioner, Sivagangai Municipality, Sivagangai District, cancelling the appellant's leasehold rights to collect toll in the daily market, 61 stalls and 10 shops therein in the Sivagangai Municipality, and forbearing the respondents from interfering with the appellant's leasehold rights to collect toll in the daily market for vegetables, cattle and other objects in the Sivagangai Municipality granted earlier by the Commissioner. Apart from a series of writ petitions filed, to quash the proceedings relating to the termination of lease, and for seeking renewal of the order to extend the lease, the appellant has also filed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the lease granted to him and also to permit him to participate in the auction. On considering the writ petitions and pointing out to the counter filed, the learned single Judge held that the appellant had not respected the orders of this Court passed in W.A.(MD)Nos.630 and 631 of 2009 and that the appellant had violated the terms of the lease in not getting the receipts stamped by the Municipality. Learned single Judge pointed out that even though the appellant had been given receipts and directed to follow the license terms to have them sealed, the appellant had gone ahead with sealing of the tickets, selectively. Quite apart, instead of collecting the fee as per the Rules, there had been excess collection. In respect of tickets which are not sealed, the appellant had also forged the same and collected excess fee. In the circumstances, this Court ultimately held that the appellant cannot maintain the writ petitions on cancellation of the contract. Considering the nature of allegations made therein, learned single Judge further pointed out that in respect of subsequent auction, the purchasers not being impleaded, the writ petitions have to be rejected. Considering the fact that the appellant had challenged cancellation of the contract alone, being a matter guided by the terms of the contract, this Court held that it cannot interfere in matters of this nature. In the light of the allegations made and considering the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 172, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and others v. Gayatri Construction Company and another, which also arises in respect of cancellation of a contract by Municipality as regards the jurisdiction of this Court, all the writ petitions were rejected.

(3.) WE do not find any legal ground to accept the plea of the appellant considering the nature of allegations made, and the learned single Judge has gone through the contentions in full, only to hold that on the violation of the order of this Court by the appellant, termination being based on terms of license, on facts, no interference is called for.