THIRUPPUR MARKET VIYAPARIGAL SANGAM Vs. TAMIL NADU URBAN FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCUTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on behalf of Tiruppur Market Viyaparigal Sangam, represented through its Secretary, seeking for writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing the resolution of the third respondent from demolishing and reconstructing the existing Kamaraj Road market and Easwaran Koil Street Market in Tiruppur.

(2.) The petitioner has been registered as a Society in 2003. It represents various vendors who are carrying on business in daily market in Kamaraj Road market and Easwaran Koil Street Market in Tiruppur. It is stated that two markets are in existence for the last 30 and 60 years respectively, but the respondents have taken a decision to demolish the two markets and reconstruct the same without assuring the existing traders that sufficient number of shops will be constructed to accommodate the existing traders. Similarly the rent has also not been finalised. It has been stated that the members of the petitioner’s association are occupying small spaces and doing business in the trade of vegetables, plantain, plantain leaves, flowers, etc. It has been further stated that rent had been fixed at Rs.300/- before three years. The right to collect rent has been auctioned for the every financial year and for the year 2002-2003, such right has been auctioned for Rs.20 lakhs. Various traders pay the rent to the licencee. While the matter stood thus, on 29.11.2002, the Municipal Council passed Resolution No.1921, which is extracted hereunder :- “ . . . By Letter having reference No.TUFIDCO/P.F.A/IDSMT/F.1/ANLP/2002 it was informed that loan of Rs.628 lakhs will be contributed by the Central Government at Rs.290.50 lakhs and TUFIDCO at 337.50 lakhs under the IDSMT scheme. Referring to the said letter the 1st Respondent Tiruppur Municipal Council, by Resolution No.625, dated 15-03-2002 approved the implementation of the revenue yielding and service oriented schemes under IDSMT with the financial aid of TUBIDCO for Rs.700 lakhs. Under the revenue yielding scheme the shops in Tiruppur Daily market in Kamaraj Road, Tiruppur and another market in Easwaran Koil Street, Tiruppur will be reconstructed at a cost of Rs.140 lakhs and 134 lakhs respectively. . .” Since the members of the petitioner’s Association apprehended that the shops would be demolished even without making any alternative arrangement in the interregnum, various representations have been filed from time to time. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.6022 of 2003, wherein without considering the writ petition on merit, a direction was given for consideration of the representation, but such representation has not been considered by the Council and has been rejected by the Chairman. It is further stated that in fact some of the members of the petitioner’s association had earlier filed W.P.No.1895 of 2003 wherein the High Court had also directed the respondents 2 & 3 to consider the representation filed on behalf of the association and dispose of the same. It is stated that representation has not been considered properly and the respondents have taken an arbitrary decision to demolish the market. It has been submitted that the two markets in question are in good condition and there is no necessity nor justification to demolish the market by incurring huge expenditure. It has been further indicated that “ even assuming that the proposal has to be implemented the 2nd and 3rd Respondents are under no obligation to give an undertaking that once the new market is constructed the existing lessees will be given preferential allotment in the new market. Also the 2nd and 3rd Respondents should construct the new market in such a way that all the existing lessees will be accommodated in the new market. Also during construction period, the respondents 2 and 3 should provide a alternate place for the existing lessees to carry on their trade. . . .”. It has been submitted that the proposal to demolish and reconstruct the existing market is totally arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3 refuting the contentions raised by the petitioner’s Association. It has been stated that neither the petitioner Association nor the members of such Association are directly lessees under the respondents 2 & 3. It has been further submitted that even assuming that they were lessees at some point of time, they do not have any right to continue for ever and the respondents 2 & 3 have taken a decision to reconstruct the market after demolition in order to avoid health hazard and other problems by availing financial assistance from the respondent No.1. It has been further stated that as per the revised plan, number of shops to be constructed would be in excess of number of shops to be demolished. It has been further indicated that the shops are to be settled on the basis of auction and only minimum rent has been fixed.