CHENNAL KOTHAWAL CHAVADI THAKKALI VYABARIGAL SANGAM Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN MADRAS METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO 8 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD EGMORE MADRAS 8

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sangam is having 200 members on its roll and all of them are dealing in wholesale business in tomatoes at the Kothwal Chavadi Market, Madras. All the members of the Sangam are being allotted shops in the newly built Koyambedu wholesale Market Complex. THEir grievance is that the allotments are likely to be made on 8th and 9th of March and their request for allotment in a contiguous place for all the members has not been considered by the respondents. On 2-3-1994 they have given a representation to the third respondent seeking allotment of shops for all the wholesale traders at a separate place in a contiguous manner. No reply has been received to this representation. But the drawal of lot for choosing the particular shop for allotment is to be made on 8-3-1994 and 9-3-1994. I am unable to understand the right, which is sought to be enforced on behalf of the petitioner Sangam. THEre may be advantages and disadvantages in the members of the petitioner Sangam having their wholesale business in a separate place at contiguous shops. It is not for this court to find out whether it is more advantages for the public to have such shops in a contiguous manner. THEse are all matters, which have to be examined by the respective Authorities in the light of the experience gained in other markets. Further, there is the difficulty of satisfying the other allottees, who may have an objection to the allotment of contiguous shops only to tomato wholesalers, preventing the other traders. THE third respondent cannot act unilaterally one way or the other. THErefore, if it is possible to accommodate the members of the petitioner Sangam in the manner they seek for allotment, the third respondent may consider their representation and pass orders. On this account, I do not want to prevent the respondents from going ahead with the drawal of lots on 8-3-1994 and 9-3-1994. Mr. A. Chellakumar for the third respondent says that it may not be possible because while drawing lots, it will be difficult to accommodate all the tomato dealers in one place. I have made it dear that the representation may be considered, only if it is feasible. THE writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Petition dismissed.