P.V. SUBRAMANIAN AND ORS. Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, STATE OF TAMILNADU, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G. Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R.A.S. Senthilvel, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents. With the consent on either side, the Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The petitioners seek for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 02.02.2015, by which the petitioners' request for extension of lease beyond the period of nine years was rejected by the Respondent/Town Panchayat stating that they are not entitled to continue as lessee beyond a period of nine years. Thereafter, the tender notification was issued by the respondent on 12.03.2015 and tenders have been called for in respect of various Lease and Licenses to be granted by the Respondent/Town Panchayat.

(2.) The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 92, dated 03.07.2007, framing guidelines for granting leases in respect of the shops and properties owned by local bodies. Clause 4 of the Government Order deals with the manner in which the lease of the properties owned by the local body could be granted.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by relying upon clause 4(ii) and (iii) of the Government Order, submitted that even after the expiry of a period of three years, the existing lessee is entitled to a further renewal of nine years and the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner seeks for setting aside the impugned order and to renew the petitioner's lease for a further period of nine years. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the petitioner, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant sub-clauses in clause 4(i) to (iii) of G.O.Ms. No. 92, dated 03.07.2007, which reads as follows: