THE CHENNAI FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Vs. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P. No. 28520 of 2011, stated to be an association of the Fruit Commission Agents, represented through its President S. Srinivasan of Anna Fruit Market, Koyambedu and the petitioner in W.P. No. 28521 of 2011, stated to be an individual allottee, have come up with the instant writ petitions, seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondent from granting any right in the form of permission, licence, allotment or sale to the retail vendors or any third parties other than the allottees of the shops constructed as per the respondent's approved Koyambedu Wholesale Fruit Market Complex Plan dated 12th December 1988 or permitting such third parties to carry on any trade in the common built up area like platforms, shopping and service streets, court yard, etc. provided within the Koyambedu Wholesale Fruit Market Complex.

(2.) THE relevant facts necessary for adjudication, in brief, are that the Government of Tamil Nadu conceived a wholesale market complex at Koyambedu to shift and replace the shopkeepers in the Kothavalchavadi George Town congested area for vegetables, fruits and flower wholesale market. Indisputably, the said market was developed and constructed under self -financing scheme at the cost of the allottees. According to the petitioners, all the allottees paid the cost of godowns, open parking place for vehicles, drainage facilities, court yard and toilet facilities in the shops, separate verandahs to be held and vast common area to be under their ownership. The entire complex comprises 456 shops as per the approved plan. The fixation of the cost of the said shops was questioned by the petitioner association in Civil Suit being C.S. No. 250 of 1988, wherein, it was clearly stated by the respondent that the project was conceived, planned and developed as a socio -welfare measure on no profit basis. The actual cost is paid by the allottees alone to their benefit. According to the petitioners, the complex was completed in the year 1991 and it was opened for allotment to the members of the petitioner association from 1996 onwards. Thereafter, the allottees have been carrying on their wholesale trade in the said complex. However, handing and taking over took place formally in July 2006. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed in December 2006. The allottees continued thereafter as lawful owners of the shops as specified in Schedule B and all other common built up area like platforms, shopping and service streets, court yard, etc. under common ownership. These writ petitions, as aforestated, seek a direction forbearing respondent from granting any right in the form of permission, licence, allotment or sale to the retail vendors or any third parties other than the allottees of the shops constructed.

(3.) THE learned counsel would further contend that the Court Commissioner had clearly observed that the allotment of new shops would add to the congestion in the already heavily choked and clogged wholesale shopping complex. It was further observed that the original plan is meant purely for the purpose of service, i.e., loading and unloading of goods by the shop owners and for garbage vans and other such services. Shopping complex of wholesale traders is regulated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities (Regulation and Location) Market Act, 1996 (for short "the Act, 1996") and as such, there is a prohibition to permit any other authorised person to carry on trade in the market, except wholesale trade and as such, permitting retailers would amount to infringement of the provisions of the Act, 1996.